Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive557

Botnet attack?
See the log for edit filter 3, multiple IPs attempting to add the same nonsense information and edit summary to Guestbook. I checked a couple of them and they don't appear at first glance to be proxies, but they sure look like a botnet of zombie computers. Should these IP addresses be blocked? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the title of the article is a magnet for those who want to generate links to their own sites for search engine optimization. I've semi protected the article for a month.  Should the spamming resume at that point, I think we should permanently semi-protect.  You have to picture somebody following bad SEO advice to look for guestbooks where they can post to.  This Wikipedia page is going to be the first thing that shows up when they search for guestbooks. Jehochman Talk 22:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I checked some of these at the time, and they all looked to be non-open-proxies. The IPs also look quite dynamic. While a block would not be inappropriate, the question really is how long the block should be for. Since the edit filter is already stopping them, and is likely to continue to do so, I'd be inclined to just ignore them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Resident Evil: The Darkside Chronicles
User 70.190.210.142 has been making edits to this article since April 21, 2009, most of which have been changing the order the Resident Evil 2 protagonists are mentioned to "Claire Redfield and Leon S. Kennedy". Leon's character and scenario are mentioned first on official sites, in the manuals, game information, press releases and in the game itself. Therefore, me and other users (such as Geoff B and StarScream1007) think this is the order to go with for the Resident Evil 2 section of this article. Despite objections by trusted editors and requesting a reason for his edits on the talk page, the user keeps reverting the article and ignores community input. I therefore think this is to be considered disruptive editing and request a block of the user's IP. Prime Blue (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Stalking hounding and harassment
I've been at the receiving end and seen other editors receive very abusive treatment when they try to edit articles to include minority viewpoints consistent with our wp:NPOV policy. The policy states that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Yet those attempting to include minority viewpoints are often hounded and stalked. I understand that user talk pages are important means of communication, but if someone is told they're not welcome and their comments aren't related to article content why is the behavior allowed to continue? Also, I've seen and experienced these same "editors" following me to other talk pages and commenting in threads I'm involved in. Is this kind of taunting and harassment acceptable? The violation of our core NPOV policy seems bad enough, but after watching some major content contributors leave because of this, I'm very concerned that these methods are used to promote censorship and bias in our article content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, you might actually get some help if you were a slightly bit more specific. General statements about how things are going aren't going to result in much.  Can you provide some examples?  Also, WP:UNDUE is probably the policy you're more concerned about than WP:NPOV.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are some diffs of an "editor" who has been asked dozens of times to leave me alone and yet continues to stalk, harass, and taunt me. I have never seen them contribute to an article, so I don't see how any of their comments could relate to content contributing or collegial collaboration., , , , , , , and there's also more discussion of me on their talk page. I've tried to ignore it, but it hasn't stopped. I'd just like them to leave me alone and to do their ummm... whatever you want to call it away from editors who don't welcome this activity. I haven't looked closely at all these diffs, they're just a recent sampling, but I don't think any of the discussions involved them at all so their comments were wholly unwelcome and not constructive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What does all this about Baseball Bugs (and have you notified him of this) have to do with NPOV? -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 02:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, since we won't actually name the editor in question, I'll let him know that he is being discussed. Protonk (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Without having seen this, I'd left a note on Bugs' talk page asking that editor to avoid commenting on or interacting with ChildofMidnight (which Bugs had said would happen in the past). Rather than this turning into another endless Obama thread that produces nothing other than acrimony, can ChildofMidnight and Baseball Bugs both agree to not interact with (or comment on) one another? It should not be that hard. ChildofMidnight already sounds amenable to that, and as I said Bugs was at one point. I think that addresses the core issue, so let's see what the two editors have to say about that proposal before going any further. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think in this case, regardless of what you feel about the politics at the heart of the dispute, these comments are over-the-line in terms of WP:NPA and Bugs needs to stop this sort of thing. Calling someone names like "POV-pusher" is probably not very helpful in terms of resolving any dispute, and clearly violates the letter and spirit of WP:NPA. I think he needs to step back and stop making these sorts of comments at Wikipedia. Furthermore, it would help if Bugs and CoM agreed to stop interacting with each other across any articles if possible.  Of importance here is a recent ArbCom case as well, Requests for arbitration/Obama articles.  -- Jayron  32  03:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can't point out that someone is pushing a POV then why even have a policy against POV? From the post above where Child of Midnight complains about this issue he admits he is trying to add minority viewpoints, and a look at his edits shows he is indeed violating WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV by extension. I have no comment if Bugs went over the line, but the idea that you can't point out that someone is a POV pusher, especially with such longstanding evidence, is simply ridiculous. It's not a personal attack to point out when someone is breaking policy, and if they find that label as disparaging in some way the correct way to fix it is for them to stop breaking the policy, not to complain about the people pointing it out.   DreamGuy (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Homer and Tarc engage in similar behavior towards me. I should point out that I went to BB's talk page to notify them, but Protonk beat me to it. BB has also been asked to cease this behavior by numerous admins. I prefer to edit content than to chase down diffs. But if I need to I will try to come up with some. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (ec multiples)
 * ChildofMidnight, are you amenable to the solution put forward above, i.e. that you just completely avoid each other, assuming Baseball Bugs agrees to and abides by it as well? That seems to me the best way forward. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds fantastic to me. If there's a discussion that actually invovles us both like an Arbcom issue or something fine. But he can keep to his section and I'll keep to mine. Otherwise I don't see any need to interact at all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One point of clarification to Jayron, none of his comments are on articles or article related, or in discussion involving him. Since I'm optimistic that at some point Arbcom will end their improper censoring of me, I don't want to be limited on what articles I can work on. I don't follow BB anywhere, but it's possible we'd be working on an article at the same time. In that case I think avoiding discussing each other directly would be fine. I already have enough people after me trying to chase me off wikipedia and off articles. I don't want to have to keep track of where he may or may not be. Like I said, I won't comment to or about him. No problem. That's the status quo for me at this point. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that Bugs has been clearly pushing your buttons. You've also been pushing his buttons and other people's buttons (your comments to ProtonK on his talk page on Aug 2, before Bugs chimed in; elsewhere).  You and Bugs pushing each others buttons is actually staying remarkably restrained overall for how many times each of you did something to each other.
 * I agree that this is not constructive or civil. We have a tendency to let "experienced users" who get grumpy to poke each other for a while, if nobody complains then we assume everyone's thick skinned and can handle it.  I think that's probably a mistake - even if you aren't personally insulted, it does bring down the level of conversation and drive away third parties, and the odds that someone will eventually become actually upset and it be a real problem are high.
 * Without ascribing any root cause / fault - if Bugs can not follow any of your comments, if you can not leave comments folllowing his, or like those you left for ProtonK on the 2nd, and you and Bugs stay separated for a while it would probably be for the best. The voluntary mutual topic ban Bigtimeinpeace proposed seems like a great idea to me.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I need to clarify this stattement after reading GWH's comment. I absolutely have not pushed BBs buttons. I avoid that editor like the plague. Your comment is a gross distortion and unless you have diffs to back it up I suggest you strike it.
 * My comments to Protonk related to his allegations against me which he didn't back off even when they were proved wrong. That behavior, in violation of AGF, was totally unacceptable and I let him know that. I haven't pursued the matter further and had you not brought it up I wouldn't have either. I see it as done and over. As you know from personal experience GWH, when there is behavior that I find disruptive and of serious harm to Wikipedia I address it. My comments to other editors and admins don't have anything to do with the stalking, harassing, and hounding of editors with minority viewpoints that promotes censorship, and you're conflating the two is disruptive and somewhat outrageous. I don't pursue those I disagree with on articles and I try to stay focused on article content and to leave personal opinions out of it. Despite the smears against me I am quite moderate, I avoid discussing my personal politics except in a discrete and humorous way, and I think it's important that various viewpoints are represented consistent with our core policy as cited above. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * CoM, I don't "engage" in any action against you, I just don't like your actions on some subjects. Like the Obama thread above.  YOu are on restriction from Obama articles and talk pages but you knowingly post at an ANI thread about Obama doing an end run around your restrictions.  That is bad faith editing.  Then when you are called on it, Baseball Bugs or I have been mean to you or some crap.  Act right, follow the rules, do something other than getting in people's business, follow your restrictions and maybe...just maybe...people wouldn't be on your case about everything. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 03:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If CoM would apologize for this then he would need never hear from me again, even when I catch him violating his topic ban the next time, and the next time, etc. He's driven me away from political pages; he's tried to box me in in various ways; he constantly makes accusations against me (and many others); but I'll be damned if I'm going to let him dictate my efforts here any further. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bugs you link to that thread often, though I'm not sure why it still bothers you so much since it was literally five months ago (I'm also not sure exactly what aspect of it bothers you since there is so much stuff there). Can't you just let it go at this point, and do you really think an apology will actually be forthcoming, or that requiring someone to apologize on-Wiki before moving forward is helpful? I'm genuinely having trouble understanding what you want here. You and C of M do not get along in the slightest and are seemingly never going to agree on much of anything surrounding this tiff. Why not just back away, which C of M says he will do, and avoid one another, which is what you said you were going to do a month ago? The dispute between the two of you wastes other editors' time and accomplishes literall nothing, so can't we just squash the beef (mmmmmm....squash beef....) right here and now? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Twice now I've turned him in for topic ban violations, and both time the experts agreed with me. He calls my reporting "stalking and harassment". For example, he accused me of "stalking" him to the Gates page. That is not true. I went to the Gates page to learn more about the subject, and there he was, violating his topic ban. I turned him in for it, and he didn't like it. Tough toenails. He's on a topic ban, and should know better. As someone else said earlier, he is constantly trying to push the envelope of that ban. The thing is, thanks to him and his brethren, I stopped watching nearly all the Obama articles, months ago. I want nothing to do with him. But he keeps popping up. With his complaint here, he's basically saying I don't have the right to report it when he breaks his topic ban. He has no right to dictate that. But here's the deal: He is basically saying he wants me to go away for good. I'm telling him how he can accomplish that. If he apologizes for that slap in my face back on March 8/9, he'll never hear from me again, unless he initiates a conversation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's worth pointing out, though, that it's not just due to narcissism on my part that I keep going back to that link. It's to point out that his political agenda, what I call his POV-pushing, has been there from the beginning, and nothing has changed. Then, as now, he accuses wikipedia of being a cheerleader for Obama. He impugns the integrity of many editors, not just me. He has demonstrated that he has not a clue what NPOV means. I worked on both political poles - Obama and Palin - at times when they were under siege by POV-pushers. I actually got compliments from Republican-leaning editors for defending the Palin page. What I got for defending the Obama page is stuff like what CoM said back in March - a beat he continues to drum here, against everyone who dares to stand up to his behavior. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

 * Until 1 January 2010, Baseball Bugs and Childofmidnight are topicbanned from commenting on, about, or to each other anywhere on Wikipedia, apart from ArbCom proceedings where both are named parties.

I support this, obviously, as I wrote it. Your turn. → ROUX   ₪  07:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that if I observe him breaking his Obama topic ban, I am not allowed to report it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Either it will be noticed and dealt with by users less ...attached... to the situation, or you may email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org to let them know. In any case, the onwiki disruption is getting silly, so it's best for the two of you to retire to separate corners and stay there. → ROUX   ₪  07:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about it if instead of reporting in on-wiki, you e-mailed an administrator? It's likely that someone else would catch it - and really you should just ignore his edit trail - but if something comes up you could always ask an admin to investigate. That would avoid on-wiki drama but make sure that someone looked into the situation.


 * Roux's proposal is fine with me, although it might not be a bad idea to simply make it indefinite rather than giving an end date, and to make it an informal arrangement which the two parties agree to. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indefinite, sure, but informal seems like a bad idea. CoM has already nibbled at the edges of his current topicban, so a clear and unambiguous statement--no comments on or about each other anywhere on en.wikipedia.org--is the best way to go. Simple and effective, with the usual escalating blocks for either editor even pushing at the edges. No commenting. Period. End of drama. → ROUX   ₪  07:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Endpointed or not, if I happen to see what looks like an Obama topic ban violation, and if there's no issue about my sending an e-mail to an admin about it, then it's fine. And if I have reason to defend him (which I have done before, and which I did in a section farther down), then I would also use e-mail. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And to formalize it, presumably amend the arbcom ruling page on this matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * However, he has impugned other editors besides me. Can the arbcom ruling also be amended that he is to refrain from accusing wikipedians of being cheerleaders for Obama, regardless of where he might say it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is fine, so long as both parties agree to it. I will state that hearing from CoM above that NH and Tarc act the same way with respect to CoM gives me pause.  What we don't want is to establish a network of mutual editor bans where the real problem may not be negative pairwise interaction.  If this is indeed the best solution at the lowest level, let's do it.  If it isn't, then we should avoid it.  To BB specifically, if you agree to this, I don't think you should worry about watching over CoM's vis a vis his topic ban.  If he has really violated it in a specific area, someone else will notice and say something. Protonk (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)See, the problem is that his accusation is false. I'm NOT "watching over" CoM regarding his topic ban. The two times I turned him in for possible topic ban, I did not "stalk" him as he claims, I just happened to see it. He came to the table here months ago with the preconceived WND-like agenda that wikipedia is controlled by liberals and that that problem must be "corrected". He sees himself as some kind of knight crusading against this alleged problem, as the pronouncement on his own user page proclaims. Thanks in part to his behavior, I stopped watching nearly all the Obama pages months ago, and I don't watch his page either. But he does not have the right to dictate what pages to watch. What I watch or don't watch is my choice, not his. But if the consensus is that I only use e-mail to report possible violations, and to pretend on-wiki that he doesn't exist, I can do that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's within your power to refuse to agree to a mutual editor ban. I'm just saying that should you agree to it, you probably shouldn't comment about CoM's edits at all. Protonk (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's obvious he's never going to apologize for his offensive comments to me (and a host of others, but that's another story), so I'll have to settle for a "CoM on-wiki topic ban", and if I happen to see other rules violations that no one else has reported yet, I assure you I will not hesitate to report them myself, off-wiki as per the recommendation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IRC useful channels is a wonderful place to handle on-wiki things, off-wiki - as I've recently learned. ;] - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  09:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've heard of it, and it doesn't sound like something I would want to get involved with. The next times CoM violates his topic ban or breaks other rules, I'll notify a trusted admin via e-mail and let him take appropriate action. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do sometimes think, given CoM's ever-widening circle of targeted editors, that he has a secret wish to actually get perma-banned here. Then he and his WND buddies could do the "Told Ya So" dance together. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Counter-proposal: I will pretend that CoM does not exist, for as long as he remains active on wikipedia, provided that he is required to cease and desist from using inflammatory terms including but not limited to "troll", "vandal", "stalker", "harasser", "censor", "abuser", "POV-pusher" and so on, against any and all established users. That would be on any and all pages. Then I will likewise refrain from any such labeling against any and all users. If someone is feeling abused or harassed or whatever, there are proper channels which are permissible. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that counterproposal (the part about avoiding certain words) would be agreed to, unfortunately. The usage of inflammatory terms is a serious issue, but I don't think a voluntary restriction is going to work (in the end further dispute resolution may be required). However a voluntary restriction can clearly work in terms of you and C of M avoiding one another, and it seems you both agreed to that above, but I'm not sure if you're withdrawing that and saying you need something more now. Rather than insisting on this counter-proposal, can we just stick to something that can actually be accomplished and end this thread knowing that both of you agree not to engage with the other? As said you can contact admins about any issues you see. I don't want this ANI thread to end with no useful outcome. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In the bright light of day, it occurred to me that it's easy for him to comply, because the only time he ever mentions my name is when I've called him out for rules violations and other bad behavior. So it's a one-sided deal, and unless there's some commitment on his part to improve his own behavior, we're done here. But I will do better to try to avoid him. Unless he changes his approach, he is headed slowly but surely for banishment (which is probably what he secretly wants), and there will be a parade of others to facilitate that; I won't be needed for it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I don't understand the logic of the last comment. If you're not interacting with each other you're not interacting with each other, period. You would not be calling him out for rules violations (at least on-wiki) so he would not be able to complain about you doing that, so the behavior you dislike would stop. How is it a one-sided deal? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that you are indeed harassing him, Bugs. You are quite aware that your interactions with him are inflammatory and continue to do so anyways. Stop causing drama and leave him alone and there won't be any problems, as far as you are concerned. Jtrainor (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

To explain my proposal in a little more detail. There are clear problems with some of CoM's behaviour and have been since basically his first edit. There are also problems with Baseball Bugs' behaviour, particularly with regards to CoM--there are unavoidable similarities here with AllStarEcho/Bluemarine. These problems need to be addressed. Unfortunately, when it's Bugs calling out CoM, the discussion quite neatly swings to being about him (Bugs) and not addressing the problems with CoM's behaviour. In much the same way that ASE's topicban regarding Bluemarine will allow those less attached to the situation to see problematic behaviour without any drama sauce on top, the mutual topicban (and I urge admins to impose it rather than ask for a mutual agreement; the latter is easy to game and far too nebulous. An imposed restriction is unambiguous) is intended to remove the drama caused by Bugs commenting about CoM, permanently, which will allow more clarity when viewing the separate actions of both Baseball Bugs and CoM, and provide more opportunity to find solutions. In other words, the solution proposed quite deliberately avoided dealing with any of the larger issues; the goal is to blow some of the smoke away and let us see whether there is indeed a fire burning and what is feeding it.

Imposing this topicban will very simply remove a source of drama while clarifying what, if any, the actual underlying issues are. Should those underlying issues be resolved--and one way to resolve some of them is ongoing at ArbCom as we speak, via ArbCom clarifying CoM's topicban parameters--I see no reason why this restriction on both users cannot be lifted at some date in the future. → ROUX   ₪  21:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to just implement the restriction as proposed by Roux. I could, and would, do this under terms of the Obama article probation. ChildofMidnight is amenable to this arrangement, and Baseball Bugs seemed to agree but then pulled back. Regardless the issue is clearly Obama related and admins have a bit more leeway in that area.


 * But I'd rather get a stronger consensus for an imposed "go to your separate corners" for these two editors. The basic proposal would basically be Roux's above, modified to make the time frame indefinite, with slight wording changes and a note about enforcement:


 * Until further notice, Baseball Bugs and Childofmidnight are restricted from commenting on, about, or to each other anywhere on Wikipedia, apart from ArbCom proceedings where both are named parties. Failure to abide by this restriction will result in 24 hour blocks, escalating to lengthier blocks if the violations continue.


 * I'd like a few other comments on this as I said (and really I'm looking for uninvolved people here ideally), but I'm willing to implement this myself (if someone else wants to that's fine as well), inform the two parties in question, and log it here. Thoughts? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Being that this is basically a community sanction, it should be logged at Editing restrictions, if not in both places. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  23:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just do it. It's a totally one-sided deal, because CoM doesn't have to do anything. It's easy to comply with something you're not doing. He's driven me away from the Obama articles, and if I see him editing anything else, I'll have to stay away from that page too. He better stay away from the baseball articles, though, or there will be hell to pay. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing that's irksome is that I have to give something up, and he doesn't. I report him for topic-ban violations, and I get punished for it. So here's another idea. He's topic-banned from Obama articles for some stretch of time, I'm not sure how long. I'm effectively prevented from reporting his violations of that topic ban or other rules, since I shouldn't be watching his contribs list, and if I randomly go to an article that he's doing something with (as with the Gates article), then I have to stay away from that article or risk a block. So just extend the no-contact ban to the point where his topic-ban ends. Because at that point, there'll be no reason for any crossover whatsoever, and both of our banishments will be over. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Bugs. You can edit any articles you please. Just don't talk to or about CoM. And obviously stay off his talkpage. If you see him infringing his topicban, email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. The point of this is not to punish you, it is to remove some stuff that is obscuring the real issues at play, if any. → ROUX   ₪  01:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you're wrong. I cannot edit any article he's working on; it's not practically possible. And you won't be getting any e-mails from me. You can deal with him yourself. I report him for possible topic-ban violations twice, one of which bought him a block that stuck, and the other block was overturned simply because the admin didn't word it quite right, and this is the thanks I get for it. Similar to the thanks I got for defending wikipedia against his ilk back in March. No. You can have him. He's all yours. Have fun! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bugs, that is your choice. But please understand that this proposal is like applying an ice pack to a sprained ankle; it's there to reduce the swelling, and after that's gone the doctor can see if any further damage has been caused--and fix it if there is any. There is nothing more to it than that. → ROUX   ₪  03:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's your choice. You've taken away mine. Whatever. There are other fish to fry. But no e-mails. I get enough spam as it is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * may I have leave to comment, please? I have a relevant opinion which, alas, I cannot safely express here without leave to do so despite being the target of the alleged Arbcom violation under discussion, thanks to a Cache-22 arising from a similar stay-away order. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever difference that is likely to make...-- The LegendarySky Attacker 01:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe CoM is right about his claims of censorship. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing restriction enacted
I'm going to go ahead and put this into effect. Bugs (somewhat reluctantly) and previously ChildofMidnight are both agreeing to this, but I think we can also think of this as a community-imposed restriction and/or a restriction stemming from the Obama article probation, wherein admins have broader authority to implement measures like these. If there are concerns with how this was implemented I'll take the heat as the admin taking this action, deriving my ability to do so from this. But there also seems to be consensus from other editors and from the two parties in question, so I don't really think we have a problem.

I'll leave leave notes on both editors' talk pages announcing the conclusion here, and log the action in a couple of places. Perhaps the thread can stay open for a little while longer to make sure there are no major objections, but after awhile I suggest this be marked resolved and we all move on. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bigtimepeace, Obama probation allows individual administrators to implement reasonable sanctions without a full-community-discussion; the community in effect places an amount of trust in allowing them to skip a step. However, Obama probation is not to be used as a means of making something stick if it has a chance of being questionable in the eyes of the community - that would be a serious breach of community trust. You used it exactly how it shouldn't be used. You should have made it plain that this was a sanction you were considering under Obama probation and that you were merely gathering other views in general. This is because remedies under Obama probation may be reversed at the discretion of the imposing administrator; unless specified otherwise, ordinary community sanctions may only be reversed by another community consensus, or via ArbCom channels. This did not happen. Instead, this discussion has all appearances of being one an ordinary community sanction, and Obama probation is just a means to cover yourself if your imposing of this as a community sanction is not acceptable.


 * To summarise: as you believe that it's ready to be implemented, then it will be as an ordinary community sanction (that's how the discussion appears) - the remedy is not implemented under Obama probation at this time. Consequently, I am reversing the entry you've placed in Obama probation log of sanctions. If your imposing of this as an ordinary community sanction is acceptable, then the restriction itself cannot be reversed at your discretion - it requires another community consensus or ArbCom intervention. Finally, though this is a less major consideration, I hope you have not translated an informal agreement into a formal restriction - it's well known that informal agreements should be tried first, and formal restrictions should be more towards a last resort, so that parties have some leeway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You might have tried talking to me about it first, especially since you are not an administrator and you've essentially reversed an admin action. If you want it to stand solely as a community sanction, that's fine with me (and I could have reversed the edit on the Obama log myself had you bothered to even try to have a discussion with me), though I saw no problem with approaching the matter both as a community sanction and an admin sanction under the terms of article probation. I'm not much into rules-lawyering I'm afraid, and my point was to demonstrate that the restriction had support on multiple fronts (including from the editors themselves). The point was that the end result was "overdetermined" as we sometimes say.


 * You obviously don't know what I was or am thinking, and as such the idea that "Obama probation is just a means to cover yourself if your imposing of this as a community sanction" or that this was a way "of making something stick if it has a chance of being questionable in the eyes of the community" is something you are making up out of whole cloth. That is not what is happening at all. Nor did I have any intention of reversing the restriction, as it was also imposed in a communal sense. It stands until the community reverses it. Again, you might have asked me about the matter, rather than essentially accusing me of having no idea what I was doing and possibly committing "a serious breach of community trust." You are way, way out of bounds there.


 * And yes, this has been translated into a formal restriction, though I was not even the one to propose that. If you want to re-open the discussion about that feel free, but you're the first person to complain, and indeed in the end the two editors agreed to this. I'm disappointed in the process wonkery here, but far more disappointed in the fact that you could not simply leave me a note on my talk page to discuss the issue. I have no idea where you think your authority comes from to undo administrative enforcement, but I don't think you have any. Ironically we could have ended up with the same result if you simply would have left me a note. Please don't do anything further on this without discussing it here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take responsibility for my actions, including my extraordinarily slow notification, which got mixed up in my tabs. I apologize for the unreasonable delay.


 * There a series of problems with putting it both under Obama probation and as a community sanction, particularly all at once. Both Obama probation and community sanctions are community-based; but they are separate - appeals, logging requirements, among other things, are different. Obama probation came about to avoid the need for individual-sanction discussions so trusted members put in whatever they want; community sanctions in the same area were to be used so that they are implemented after involving a full community discussion.


 * Given that the community sanction discussion ran its course, for one thing, it was not made plain that this sanction was considered under Obama probation and this was merely getting some other views. For another thing, it makes no sense for someone who isn't interested in rule-process-wonkery to add more of that process-wonkery, unnecessarily, to an otherwise simple remedy. It's ironic. Why would someone want to log it using Obama probation requirements which are more extensive? Finally, the other dimension Obama probation has is in appeals - that the imposing administrator can grant an appeal, while community sanctions require yet another full community discussion. With all these factors, my point is one can easily think that your actions appear to lack propriety; I don't personally believe they were deliberate - and you may gather that if you read the last sentence a few times, in the second para of my "lecture" as you called it.


 * I myself have no issue with the restriction and whether it's formal or informal - nor should anyone else. It's something for the parties to think about themselves. The amount of paperwork and process involved with Obama probation was intentional at the time of its creation; it highlights the difference between a community-based decision, and an individual administrator decision. I would not have known all this, had I not been the very user who proposed and enacted Obama probation for the benefit of the wider community. I knew that the effect of the sanction is not reversed based on your imposing it as a community sanction, and trusted that you would leave it at that. This is not our first encounter. Once again, I apologise about the notification, and even the delay in replying here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is basically closed now (and as such this is a postmortem), but if you read the discussion above, you'll see I was originally going to enact this under the terms of Obama article probation, and just wanted a little more feedback before I did this (which I said specifically). Then another editor suggested it needed to be logged as a community ban, and perhaps should be logged both as that and as falling under Obama article probation. Because I had initially been only going to do the latter (and asked for feedback in that regard), it seemed a better idea to not switch solely to a community sanction, but to acknowledge that the action was originally going to be take under the terms of Obama article probation. I was clearly following another editor's suggestion, not going out on some weird limb by myself. I also wanted to take full responsibility for implementing this, as I noted above when I said "I'll take the heat as the admin taking this action." Obviously that is exactly what is happening here, as you have been criticizing me, not the collective discussion. The suggestion that there is an appearance of impropriety seems odd to me when I followed the suggestions of other users in terms of the wording of the remedy and the places where it was to be logged, and also in the end still said "I take responsibility for this." You could have clarified what was going on by asking me, rather than adding your own (incorrect) interpretation above without any consultation.


 * Your talk page posts to Baseball Bugs and ChildofMidnight muddied the issue. They had both agreed to this, yet you ran over there and said they could come back here and try to undo the whole matter. That's not true, and you could well have made things more complicated by saying that. I'm not sure you even read the above thread carefully enough to know what was going on here, because if you had you would have seen explicit agreement from both of these editors.


 * Again, the main issue, which you don't acknowledge, is not delayed communication ("notification" as you say) with me, but the fact that you took it upon yourself to reverse certain actions without talking to the admin first. That is common courtesy, you are not even an admin, and you have a history of over-stepping your authority and acting like an admin (or an ArbCom clerk) when you are neither of those things. It matters not that you "proposed and enacted Obama probation" (the community actually did the latter - but whatever), and you do not have ownership over that process. If we have another "encounter", please try talking with me first before taking me to the woodshed and reversing an administrative action of mine. Your concerns could have been dealt with by me in about ten minutes and with no acrimony by leaving a few sentence note on my talk page, so in the end you handled this poorly.


 * I consider this matter closed and will not comment on this again here, but if you want to discuss it further you can head to my talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is better that this be our last encounter. Repeatedly claiming I've interpreted anything incorrectly, when that's not the case, plainly demonstrates how futile communication may have been - your own apparent inability to interpret my plain English above, however convoluted the wording may be at times, really should say it all. It's clear that there has been no change in your own approach in this Obama area since our previous encounter; though I am not so foolish as to provoke it further with details of that history. Your accusation that I muddied the issues by bringing up potential issues with it at the parties talk pages (let alone here) is baseless. I'm fully aware of the circumstances under which both parties agreed; and the circumstances under which this became a formal restriction. That said, I will be more open to an idea because I don't mind talking to competent admins before-hand - especially those who are actually able to handle criticism without further exacerbating a situation.


 * All that said, it seems that there are a handful of administrators who stubbornly insist they are taking enough care (and steps) to avoid troubling perceptions by others - obviously, it just may so happen that what they think does not equal reality. I can now understand why the number of troubling allegations made about administrators in general are increasing, with many in the past couple of days alone. My only concern is that perhaps the entire bunch is being blamed for the issues with a handful. I'm done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been off for a few days but I see, as usual, ChildofMidnight name-drops me once again. This is a continuing pattern, most recently seen in a topic at Bigtimepeace's talk page (User talk:Bigtimepeace) where I expressed disappointment that CoM's block did not stand. This user employs either one of two tactics; #1 is to name-drop when the other person has not even been involved in the current situation, as above, or #2 does the vague and nebulous call for "disruptive and persistent policy violators" to be banned. When asked, by myself or others, to provide diffs and evidence to support such a claim, CoM either backs away completely or demands that the other person be the one to do the digging. I'm not sure in what Bizarro-world one expects/demands the accused to provide the evidence that damns them, but whatever.

This user is obviously having serious behavioral issues with a wide variety of other users, some so acrimonious as to warrant ArbCom intervention i.e. (CoM vs. Bugs, CoM vs. Scjessey, CoM vs. Wikidemon). It seems that ChildofMidnight is seeking to add more and more users to this list (i.e. myself and NeutralHomer, tho I haven't the slightest idea what the context is of the latter), some sort of "these are the meanie wikistalkers, keep them away!" shtick. Perhaps the solution to a problem of one user having a problem with many users is to sanction the one rather than creating more and more specialized one-to-one relationship restrictions. Investigate the source of the problem, not the branches. Tarc (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I too share concerns with both the method and the wisdom of adding to the list of editors who are prohibited from interactions with this editor after having run-ins with him. Having created and maintained a number of the Obama article probation pages following Ncmvocalist's initial bold step of creating the community general sanction, I think the inclusion criteria for logging sanctions has been very loose to date: many of the 100+ on the list were blocked or banned on general principles, not with reference to sanctions.  On the other hand, many who were sanctioned under probation did not make the list.  Shall we add to the list all 30+ others who have exchanged mutual accusations of bad faith with this editor?  That would remove at least one and possibly more of the administrators on this thread, one or more of the Arbcom members, and the co-founder of Wikipedia... more or less anyone who has tried to deal with the problem.  To what end?  What is the likelihood that removing involved parties will lead to a solution?  Do you really think that if you forbid from interaction those whose patience has run out in favor of your own personal efforts to teach and have patience, you're really going to have a better result trying to reform this editor than all the others who have tried?  I am a party to this latest incident, not of my own choice.  Please let me know if I am free to discuss that here, and if not, please take this to Arbcom or some other forum where all of the interested parties are free to speak.Wikidemon (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The diffs at the top of the thread speak for themselves. Numerous admins have asked the editor to cease the inappropriate behavior for months. Stalking, harassment and personal attacks are unacceptable, and I hope that this solution will remedy the problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that by commenting directly about Bugs, you have just fallen afoul of the editing restriction enacted by Bigtimepeace. An admin should block you for that. → ROUX   ₪  21:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As this is an active discussion about editing restrictions that involve me it's quite reasonable and only fair that I be allowed to comment. As the restrictions have now been put in place I support the discussion being archived so we can all move forward. But if editors wish to discuss it further, then I think I am allowed to respond, don't you? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. The ban was enacted, it is in effect. You are no longer permitted to talk to or about Baseball Bugs anywhere on Wikipedia, bar an ArbCom case. → ROUX   ₪  05:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (before ec) Please note - I've mentioned this issue, and also my query over my own ability to comment on it, before Arbcom. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Roux, ChildofMidnight is permitted to discuss it further until this discussion is closed - the same goes for Baseball Bugs. No administrator is foolish enough to inflexibly enforce it in the very same discussion. However, if there are no objections from either regarding the enactment of the restriction, or on the restriction itself, then there is no basis to keep this discussion open for any longer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * CoM, I see 7 diffs in regards to Baseball Bugs. Can you either provide evidence to back the "Neutral Homer and Tarc engage in similar behavior towards me" claim, or, y'know, stop making such a claim? Tarc (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is 7 not enough? He's been warned repeatedly by at least three different admins and promised on at least two different occasions to cease the offending behavior. Netural Homer has also been asked on several occasions to refrain from baiting me and making unconstructive additions to threads where I'm involved. The diffs are in his talk page history. The concern about users teaming up, stalking and harassing an editor they disagree with is serious and legitimate. If this particular problem with this editor can be resolved, that's a good start and I'm hopeful that things will improve. There are no editing restrictions involved other than not being allowed to talk to or about me. They are still allowed to take any concerns that they have about my editing to an admin via e-mail. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about Bugs; I actually agree that he has done much to exacerbate the situation, esp with this pedantic "apologize to meeeee!" stuff. What I'm angling for here is essentially a "put up or shut up" with the accusations-without-proof stuff.  I may weigh in at ArbCom amendments and clarifications and at AN/I, and seeing your name pop up in article edits where it isn't supposed to be popping up, but that certainly is not, quote, being a "disruptive and persistent policy violator".  That's the sorta thing that needs to stop. Tarc (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum, I honestly find the entire concept of "UserX and UserY cannot interact" as a permissible sanction to be a bit retarded. If some issue has reached a point where users have to be separated like a couple of brawling schoolboys, then just straight out block one or both for a period of time. Seriously, how much time has been wasted over the years in AN/I, ArbCom Clarification, etc...trying to clarify the Rules of Engagement for such sanctions, as the sides poke and prod what is and isn't allowed? I'd like to see this particular "remedy" removed from ArbCom's arsenal. Tarc (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the only gaming that happens is because admins let it happen. The ban is simple: no talking about or to each other. Period. It's about as black-and-white as you can possibly get. → ROUX   ₪  05:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gaming occurs either because administrators are unaware that it's happening, or they let it happen because they're reluctant to enforce it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We're quite done here now, and I'm archiving the discussion. The restriction preventing ChildofMidnight and Baseball Bugs from talking with or about one another on-wiki has been enacted as a community sanction and logged here. It is absolutely in effect at this point, and violations by either party will result in blocks from this moment forward&mdash;no ands, ifs, or buts (or "ors"). ChildofMidnight did indirectly comment about Baseball Bugs above after the sanction was officially enacted, but the thread here was still open and issues were being debated so I don't see this as a violation or as blockworthy. Let's all move on to more productive venues, and hope that the restriction imposed here is ultimately good for both editors and for the community. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Frances Gaudet
Can someone please have a talk with ? He/she keeps creating multiple articles under various titles that are all basically the same text copied and pasted multiple times. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that and  are the same person (quack!). I G11'd the articles you mention as they are pretty much serve only to promote the subject and blocked both accounts for sock puppetry. Regards  So  Why  08:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:AXJ of the USA
Could somebody who speaks tinfoilese please take a look at User:AXJ of the USA and his edits, deleted and not? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Further information. AXJ = http://www.action4justicenow.com/indexa.htm, a birther and anti-Obama website. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * People are nutters. I dunno.  I don't want to indef him, but my gut says that will eventually happen.  Maybe he'll get bored of wikipedia before he runs afoul of it. Protonk (talk) 08:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Editors also can't be role accounts. His userpage seems to indicate that, so best for someone to inform him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Current vote fraud by User:Duke81
Sockpuppet_investigations/Duke81
 * Locus of dispute, or action in dispute

User:Duke81 - diff
 * Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion

Rather obvious vote fraud at this AFD, as outlined by reporting user at Sockpuppet_investigations/Duke81. Brought here for quick consensus or action per SPI guidelines for ongoing vote fraud. Nja 247 14:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Description of the dispute and the main evidence


 * Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)


 * Comments by uninvolved editors


 * Remarks by closing editor

Is this an "exceptional high profile debate where possible disruption may need quick attention"? It seems that it can easily be handled through a normal SPI. Toddst1 (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's read the box under that one please. Can't be handled via normal SPI as the vote is open. Nja 247 15:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea okay that box talks about where the fraud doesn't affect the outcome. Is that a typo? Why take a report here where the vote isn't affected? Surely reports should come here where it's current fraud and the votes are affecting the outcome (regardless of whether it's high profile if there's even a definition of what high profile means), ie so we can take action to stop it. It's odd to wait for a vote to close knowing it's been unduly influenced and then do a CU. Nja 247 15:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You have to also wonder who's sockpuppet the start of the AFD is - because that's no new editor... --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Footlover277
Soliciting 12 and over females to indulge his/her foot fetish at Sandbox. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind, already indef blocked. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Saw it and already blocked. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * An admin should review the unblock request - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Declined--we don't need that behavior here. And just in case he gets any ideas, I've shut off his talk page and his ability to send email.  Can't take any chances ... Blueboy96 21:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite his promise to toe the line, he got the boot. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * He should have been allowed to edit pages like this one Count Iblis (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Clever!

I don't really understand why you blocked his ability to edit his own talk page. Seems rather OTT to me. Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 22:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Slightly creepy, perhaps, and I did consider offering him a Second chance to demonstrate bona fides but was overtaken by events. Perhaps I'm getting too soft in my old age- no jokes, please. Rodhull  andemu  22:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably wouldn't have offered a second chance, I would have if he'd kept to to sandbox but as he harassed someone on her userpage then no. However his only edit to his talk page was a promise to stop it, and I really don't think that merits changing the block conditions to prevent him from editing it. We should at least give him the chance to explain himself. Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 22:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We all get "soft" in our old age. That's why they invented that wonder drug...
 * Geritol! :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blue boys explained the reason for the talk page block: "And just in case you get any ideas, you have lost any access to your talk page.". Seems reasonable to me since this person did sexualy harass people which is not what Wiipedia is for Smith Jones 22:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Soliciting sexual contact from minors is not something we need to provide any sort of forum for. ~ Amory  (user • talk • contribs) 23:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could a passing Checkuser take a quick look? I've been seeing rather a lot of it this past week, for example -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have indef'ed Bob87654321. The obsession shared by these accounts are very similar to those of a couple of years ago, as I recall. Do any of the older hands recall these editors, and whether their styles are similar? It may be that there is just a coincidence of similarly orientated fetishists. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This user looks a lot like who was also recently indefed for harassment. MuZemike 20:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Stalking
User:MidnightBlueMan has started to stalk my edits, having Canvassed likeminded editors to follow the same procedure. This is at the least irritating and must surely be harrassment of an editor. Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As this naming dispute has been a very contentious issue in the past, I should think that central discussion would be appropriate before altering links around. If you didn't attempt such a discussion, I don't see how you could be surprised that interested editors have responded with alarm. – Luna Santin (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made may edits to The BI talk page, including today!, and have been insulted for my efforts there. ie This Lie by MBM typical Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wheither anyone removes 'British Isles' from any articles or not, is irrelevant to me. However, If one chooses to do so? he/she should notify others first. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where does Wikipedia say this and where have I removed 'British Isles' from any articles? Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't claimed that you did or didn't. I'm merely suggesting a guideline for the future. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This looks more like a content dispute than something for ANI. Content noticeboard might be a better venue, although it looks like the Talk:British Isles page has relevant discussion that perhaps a WP:RFC could help with. I'm not seeing this as a "stalking" issue, and it's certainly not canvassing by the link provided. It appears to be exactly the place to discuss the issues. I'm marking this as resolved, at least for this board. — Ched :  ? 15:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, thanks for the advice Þjóðólfr (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then remove the resolved tag. I'm just not seeing a problem with MidnightBlueMan or any of his edits. — Ched :  ?  18:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I removed it. I have made many edits in the field of Beetles and Natural history. What is MBM's motive other than Wikihounding? Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, I looked at the link you provided - it was your edit. So I looked at the article history - and I don't see a single edit by MBM.  Sorry, I've looked at what you provided, ... several times, and I'm just not inclined to go searching through more diffs and history.  To be perfectly blunt, my perception is that you are trying to get your preferred version of this "British Isles" thing pushed through over the objections of multiple other editors.  Sorry - maybe another admin. will see it differently - but I'm done here.  — Ched :  ?  19:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What about this example? Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Þjóðólfr appears to be doing mass changes of geographic names in a case that his been hotly contested, offering us an example regarding the distribution of beetles is unlikely to be convincing. You should familiarize yourself with past debates before you begin tinkering on a problem that has caused great passion already. The phrase 'British Isles and Ireland' seems like a neologism, and you should try to find general support before you start making this change. A good place for you to begin would be in the thread at Talk:British Isles where you could try to present arguments that would convince the other editors. See WP:BISLES for more background. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm NOT doing mass changes of geographic names and I've alraeady contributed to the above supposed starting point. Jeez. Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Þjóðólfr has my sympathy. He added a reference to an article, which previously had none, only to have it deleted by User:MidnightBlueMan, presumably because the reference spoke separately of "Britain" and "Ireland". ClemMcGann (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Quantumechanic problematic way of editing the entropy page
See here for the nature of the problem. I want to continue working on this article which might mean that at some time I would find myself in technical violation of 3RR. As explained on the wikiproject physics talk page, this is absolutely not a content dispute, as I'm willing to have the other editor have his preferred POV.

The core of the issue is that because the editor in question turns out not to know much about the subject (beyond some very superficial knowledge), the collaboration that I had in mind (he edits and I offer suggestions for minor improvements, which is reasonable given that he prefers a different verion than me, so he should be doing most of the editing work) will degenerate into long discussions about even the smallest edits, which is worse than me editing the (for me) more difficult verion all by myself.

It may also be the case that this is a hoax editor who is an expert, but who wants to prove that you can fool wiki editors and get nonsense editited in wiki articles that will stick for a long time. Count Iblis (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Ancient Egyptian race controversy continued
Anyone remember Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive554? That was a little more then a week ago. Yesterday I actually added my first new contribution to the article, the first sentence: "The Controversy surrounding the race of ancient Egyptians involved Eurocentric and Afrocentric considerations in the 19th and 20th Century." I have more than one reference for the term "Eurocentric"; this is provided at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy (typo sic). However, Wdford, whom you might know from the preceding discussion, vehemently opposed this one sentence, but I still can't figure out what his editorial argument for his opposition is, actually. He is saying that this is an "inappropriate POV statement" diff, but actually all I did was to refer to one of the best non-partisan sources I could find. The statement was (in a slightly different form) previously present in the article and simply flagged with 'citation needed', before Wdford removed all flagged statements from the article. diff. I think that "Eurocentric considerations" need to be mentioned in the lead. Just look at the statement of the historian to whom I referred:


 * "Far from trying to conceal these cultural sources [from ancient Egypt], they [the ancient Greeks] took pride in what the received from Egypt. For centuries thereafter Western historians too made no attempt to conceal this debt [of ancient Greece to ancient Egypt]; only in the nineteenth century did Grecophiles or Philhellenes, under the sway of Western racism, reject the idea that the sublime culture they so admired was not original or, worse, was not of Indo-European (Aryan) origin. The mere thought that Greece had been influenced by second-rate Egyptians or, perish the thought, by African, made them break out in a mental rash. They resorted to every trick in the book in the book to hide the truth and disseminate a perverted history with unmistakeably racist overtones. [...] For the African-American authors, reconstruction of the ancient world thus means liberation from the shackles of the racially distorted picture of the past and redemption of the historical truth. It means discarding the Eurocentric point of view in favor of a fresh description of the ancient world's history and its cultures - a description in which Europe has neither primacy, exclusivity nor supremacy." (Yaacov Shavit, History in Black, pp. 43-44)

Shavit certainly is not an Afrocentrist. "History in Black" is one of the best books on the topic. But in any case, there would be a lot more sources that say essentially the same. But regardless of my argument, the edit warring with Wdford continued, and currently I am at 3 reverts, if I count correctly. With his last edits, Wdford then re-added a lot of content from the previous revisions diff. To me this looks like a cheap evasion tactic. Wdford doesn't want to discuss the issue of the relevance of Eurocentrism for the article, so he adds some different content. But I am not falling for that. We need to discuss the issue, and I don't suppose that Wdford can bring forward a source-based argument that the "Eurocentric considerations" should not be mentioned in some form in the lead paragraph. I would revert him again, but that would be breaking 3rr.

In any case, I can't work at the article under these conditions. If this wasn't actually a notable topic, I would have already proposed the article for deletion, but the topic is notable and I could write an article - just not under these conditions. So could an admin please take a good look a the issue? Zara1709 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes please - you might also be interested to check the talk page near the end of "Towards an acceptable lead parapgraph", where the complainant openly threatens to start an edit war in order to "speed things up a little" and then says "Let's see what the admins have to say about this." This article is plagued by editors with fringe POV who start edit wars on purpose to cause an article to be protected, so please would you look carefully before simply protecting the article. Please would you also review Zara's history of edit-warring, her previous involvement in this article specifically and her tendency to prefer to work on articles she is allowed to "own", as indicated yet again by her wording above.. Wdford (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "This article is plagued by editors with fringe POV who start edit wars on purpose." I couldn't have put it better. That only leaves the question who the editor with the fringe POV is. And it is certainly not me because I don't even have an individual point-of-view. Really, I wouldn't know what that POV should be. All I did was look up what the reliable sources, which I had previously identified, have to say on "Eurocentric", and I came to the conclusion that is is an appropriate term to describe one side of the controversy in the lead paragraph. From what he has written on the talk page, I wouldn't even know that Wdford understands the difference between an editors POV and that, what reliable sources have to say, and I suspect that I could discuss this issue for about a month and Wdford still wouldn't understand. SO it is necessary to speed things up a little. Zara1709 (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

And here we are again, in under a week, like clockwork. People still doubting my suggestion that everyone at that article should be topicbanned to let the cooler heads prevail? It isn't stopping, and nothing we are doing is working to end the nonsense. According to Wikichecker here, four editors are responsible for approximately 50% of the edits to the article, and many of the same names pop up when you look at theincredibly high number of edits to the talk page.

I suggest the top 10 contributors to the article and the talkpage be topicbanned for six months. Let non-SPAs do something about this article. Alternatively, delete and salt the nonsense. If nothing else, the name that keeps on coming up here as being non-constructive is Wdford, so a topicban there at the very least would reduce a lot of this ridiculous disruption. → ROUX   ₪  15:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Alternately, since Wdford was unfairly accused before (go check the arbitration record) and has been unfairly accused yet again, instead of listening to gossip you might instead review the actual talk page and edits and make a decision based on the facts. Topicban Zara, who is blatantly gaming the system here, and the threatened edit war won't materialise. Seems simple, but it requires admins to look beyond the superficial and the gossip. Wdford (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Incredibly, I am only number 8 of the contributors to this article. By the way, the main reason that I am editing there now is that another editor remarked on my talk page that I would "find it a more congenial editing environment" at the article by now. Most likely, that impression was wrong. I don't mind the additional work I have to for the article, but I don't really need it either. And I especially don't need having to deal with editors like Wdford. In a review of "Not out of Africa: How Afrocentrism became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History" by Mary Lefkowitz, August Meier, who some people from African-American studies should know, remarks:


 * "Not out of Africa" is an effective polemic. [...]Not recognizing that Afrocentric views are rooted in a long a respected tradition, she simply falls to answer the question raised in this books subtitle . To argue with the claims of the Afrocentrists is one thing, but to overlook or ignore the work of the band of Afro-American intellectuals and popularizers who enunciated a line of thought that was deeply rooted among rank-and-file Negroes would, I believe, reveal an essential Eurocentric orientations in this study. Thus, as a work of scholarship "Not out of Africa" is deeply flawed." (Emphasis added)

This is from the December 1996 issue of the Journal of American History: (stable link). If the Organization of American Historians, or at least the board of editors of their journal, doesn't have a problem with describing one side of the controversy as "Eurocentric", why would Wikipedia? The only reason can be that some editors at Wikipedia disregard reliable sources and rather write articles based on their own POVs. Of course, you could simply ban all involved editors, but that wouldn't solve the problem, because sooner or later some more come along. Even deletion wouldn't solve the problem, sooner or later someone is going to recreate an article on the issue, because the topic is, as one historian would put it, the battlefield of a "culture war" in the United States. Zara1709 (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think these types of content disputes should go to content related noticeboards such as the article content noticeboard before coming here so that additional opinions on the content and citation issues can be solicitied in hopes that a consensus or compromise can be reached. That article, like many on Wikipedia, seems to be very contentious. But arguments over citations and content are not really administrative issues. Appropriate dispute resolution needs to be tried, and consensus sought. I'm not seeing clear behavioral issues other than frustration on both sides. Getting more opinions to try to work out the differences seems like the best way forward. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Both editors that have posted here are currently edit warring at the article. If you continue, you will be blocked to prevent further disruption. Nja 247 19:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wdford has already been banned from this article before. His block was commuted here . Now, less than two weeks later, he's at it again. Is there any reason why he shouldn't be rebanned immediately? I'm rather inclined to ban Zara1709, also, since he/she seems to be pretty consistently edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Though looking closer, it appears that at least Zara is trying to include sourced content, not unsourced like Wdford, so perhaps that should be a mitigating factor. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They're both repeat offenders, but banning people isn't the best way to do this. Too heavy-handed. I'd prefer we settle this like civilized people, on a level-playing field, rather than the admins stepping in and dealing out punishment arbitrarily. The furthest I think we should go is a protection of the article; otherwise, I plan on discussing the matter thoroughly and possibly mediating a compromise between Wdford and Zara (who are warring right now). Master of Puppets  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D  22:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Left messages on Wdford's page and Zara's. I'm hoping to get some productivity out of this. Master of Puppets  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D  22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm far from convinced I agree that banning is too heavy-handed. These kinds of POV disputes are rarely solved with out it coming to blows (figuratively, of course). Remember that this article is under probation from ArbCom and has been for quite some time, and that this article has been discussed here several times. It seems pretty unrealistic to think things like warnings and discussions are going to get us anywhere. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Topic-banning them won't do anything, though. It'll save us a headache, but I doubt they'll just give up. As has been said before, they're both repeat-offenders; they've already been talked to about this and punished. I just don't think that's the way. Listening to what they have to say and settling the issue in a human fashion, rather than telling them to back off for a week, is more promising, at least in my eyes. By no means is my idea binding; even if they agree to it, other administrators can block them. That's their discretion. I'm just not in support of that. Master of Puppets  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D  23:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I had retreated from the article roughly 6 months ago; I returned because I perceived an opportunity to fix the article; it appears that I was wrong with that. Previously I have broken 3rr in other controversies, but this was because in both cases statements from reliable sources that I had added were removed without justification from the respective articles. Wdford is trying to pull the same stunt here - removing the view of reliable sources from the article without going into a discussion based on these sources. I have mentioned 3 academic sources so far that describe one side involved in the controversy as "Eurocentric." However, even if I would throw another dozen sources at Wdford, he would still refuse to acknowledge the view of reliable sources. The topic of this article, Ancient Egyptian race controversy, extremely controversial. I actually have found two historians by know who describe it as culture war. I think I can honestly say that I am the only editor at Wikipedia I know who has an overview about this controversy, but there is no reason why I would have to work on the article. Unlike other editors I don't have a special point-of-view that I need to propagate through Wikipedia. I do think that having a good article on the topic would help the Americans find a truce in their cultural war, but that is not enough motivation for me to keep up with this. So unless I get an affirmation that articles on Wikipedia should be based in reliable sources (and not on individual editor's pov), I will simply retreat from the article. For already in the my first comment on my edit I made clear that this sentence was based on a reliable source, and Wdford can't possibly intent to write an article based on reliable sources when he argues against that sentence by calling it a "blatantly Afrocentric opening sentence". diff He should know that the historian I've quoted is not an Afrocentrist; he should at least have stopped to revert when I brought a quote from another historian, Stephen Howe, to whom he later himself referred. As far as reliable sources go, I don't need to put up with this, and I will not. Since it is rather unlikely that there will be another editor who could write a balanced article on the controversy (all you can expect from the other currently involved editors is material on skin color, skull shapes and Y-chromosomes), I would suggest that you propose that article for deletion. Zara1709 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that at one point Vassyana was considerded as a mediator, I wonder if he could not be called in to manage this case; everyone woul dhave to agree and agree to abide by his process. For myelf, I have three comments: first, I think it is always a good idea for people toagree n general principles or a framework for moving ahead, and then just follow where that leads.  Zara seems to have set up just such a framework and fram an admittedly quick glance it looks like the has broken work down into good stages.  Two: introductions are not worth getting caught up in, especially when an article is being revised because introductions have to introduce the whole article.  If the intro is the point of contention, just drop it for now and work on those parts you can agree on.  When you have done that you may find the intro easier.  Finally, after multiple protects and blocks, I think everyone should agree to a zero-tolerance policy on incivility.  Wdford, if you fel you have to further your argument by labeling Zara "topic-ban Zara" as you have here, I conclude you have no game left to contribute to this discussion as an adult.  You may as well leave. (My apologies to Wdford whom I misunderstoo)   Zara, I have not checked everything you have written but off course this would go for you too.  Why should anyone care about this article if it is only a space for personal attacks and squabbles?  Try - I say this to all people involved in the dispute - to show how this is a conflict of ideas, and others may wish to get involved and perhaps even help resolve disputes.  If anyone slings another drop of mud I would take that as an admission that they have nothing left to support their side so they are not worth listening to.  I hope these comments provide the basis for a framework for everyone to work together. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note, Slrubenstein, that I did not label Zara as "topic-ban Zara". I was suggesting to ROUX that actually topic-banning Zara is a possible solution to her threat to start an edit war, in response to his suggestion to topic-ban me. I’m sure that when you read that entry carefully you will see this, and will appreciate that there is a world of difference between my sentence and your assumption.

Re Zara's repeated complaints about her proposed opening sentence – I have stated more than once on the talk page that I accept the accuracy of the quote, but that I object to using it as the opening sentence of the lead section as I feel that it mis-defines the controversy. I hear and agree with Slrubenstein’s comment that lead sections must introduce the controversy as a whole, and that is specifically why I feel that this particular wording is misleading and inappropriate.

I did however include Zara’s sentence in my last attempt at correcting the lead section, but not as the opening sentence, and I reworded it slightly to better clarify the context. Although every sentence I added was referenced in detail, Zara nonetheless reverted this entire effort with the comment “wdford, your 'content' has so many problems that I don't even know where to start”. This is her usual alibi for not explaining why she is reverting referenced material, although she accuses me of disruption for deleting her preferred sentences without first providing a detailed explanation.

For those who are concerned that I am adding “unsourced” material, please check my contributions to the lead section that Zara reverted at – they are fully referenced.

Re her insinuations about my adding an unsourced section on the controversial issues around ancient Egyptian art, my intention was to expand this to briefly describe inter alia the accusations by Prof Manu Ampim that artwork showing the ancient Egyptians as black people have been systematically destroyed, while fake artwork has been inserted into museums etc to deliberately misrepresent the ancient Egyptians as being lighter-skinned than he believes they really were. He even accused a respected scholar – Prof Frank Yurco – of deliberately misrepresenting evidence, even though Yurco was actually quite correct, and he did so after Yurco was dead and couldn’t defend himself. (See e.g. http://www.raceandhistory.com/manu/book.htm for a taste, although the Prof is apparently a published author on the subject and there are many better references available.) I think such a conspiracy theory would qualify as controversial, and it is a widely disseminated theory. However this initiative was instantly reverted by Zara before any progress could be made, on the basis that I did not first obtain her consensus to add the section. I let it go at the time with the intention of following a consensus process, but please do not mistake my conciliatory approach for a mea culpa – I could have built that heading into a valuable and fully referenced section given half a chance. Hopefully that chance will come again.

Finally, I am more than happy to work with Master of Puppets to resolve matters.

Wdford (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Article full protected for 3 days
I would like to encourage all the warring parties to calm down and try to work together. To encourage that - the article is fully protected (administrators can edit only) for 3 days. Further multiparty disruption after the protection expires will be followed by multiparty blocks. This is not acceptable behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, well, it seems that protection was decided upon regardless. I'm not in the position to remove the restriction, and I offer my full apologies to both Zara and Wdford. I still encourage you both to reach a consensus, of course, and I'm still more than happy to provide assistance if any is required. Master of Puppets  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D  07:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks MoP, but 3 days of edit protection is not such a big deal. We have never before had an admin on the article who was prepared to get really involved in actually administering the process, so I am really looking forward to working with you. Huge respect. Wdford (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. I hope I can help you guys settle this without any more blocks or things of that sort. Cheers, Master of Puppets  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D  01:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Admin urgently needed to fix mistaken entry
Infobox made math calculation unreliable. Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Queue

then see Queue 3, which is scheduled to go next.

then see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Connell&action=history

That article clearly does not comply. It is an article from 2008. I can see why the 5 day old age can be stretched a bit, but 9-10 months is too much. It is also not nearly a 5x expansion. If recognition is desired, GA or FA can be attempted but massive bending of the rules to get DYK is not right.

An administrator is needed to replace that DYK with another. Thank you Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Illegal" is a bit strong, even if it was a problem, but DYK expansion is based on the prose content of the article, not its absolute size. If you follow through the article's history, the 5x expansion rule has been more than satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My math shows it has NOT met a 5x expansion. On 11 July 2009, it was 3,379 bytes.  It is now 11,973 bytes.  That is a 3.5x expansion which is good but not up to DYK criteria. Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is the DYK something that requires admin anything (other than it being on the main page)?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 03:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Only an admin can add or remove things from the queue where it is now. Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah... but DYK counts only prose, which means only the single sentence in this version (july 11) is counted which amounts to 86 characters. Expansion began on 2 August, and Peter Connell now has 3855 characters. This should be discussed at WT:DYK if there's a problem with that. ≈ Chamal  talk ¤ 03:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's been expanded about 40x. <font color="Navy">Law <font color="Navy">type! <font color="Navy">snype? 03:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I just found out that the byte count in the history can be corrupted by an infobox.  I brought it here because of the quick response that DYK talk doesn't have keeping in mind that the DYK was next in line. Thank you. Please don't block me for making a false, but well meaninged, police report. Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. we don't do that and 2. we aren't the police. Viridae Talk 04:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes you are. Yes you do. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol Mike R (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:NiveKJ13 and User:GMA Fan

 * This user (NiveKJ13) keeps Accusing me of sockpuppeting. I am not a sockpuupeter. Look at User talk:NiveKJ13 for evidence. He also vandalizes my talk page too. GMA Fan 9 August 2009 9:04PM
 * This matter can be explained in my talk page and in the administrator Mufka's talk page. And FYi, this is started by GMA Fan himself. And remember the thing Mufka have kept telling you?...never call edits that you don't like a "vandalism". -- 04:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * NiveKJ13, because your edits are very similar to Witchy2006's edits. Like blanking portions of LaLola (Philippine TV series). GMA Fan 9 August 2009 9:15PM
 * I have explained that to Mufka and it has been resolved. But what did you do?..you still continued adding the accusation in my talk page even though it has already been resolved. -- 04:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK Can we stop aguring and cooperate like friends. Wikipedia is a plae where everyone should cooperate. GMA Fan 9:23PM 9 August 2009


 * I wasn't arguing. You're the one using capital letters here. Showing only that you are angry or shouting. Its very unpleasant for the person you did that to even bother to cooperate with you. -- 04:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed the threading in this, a bit. For the record, is also, who is blocked in connection with two or more SPI cases. Looks like GMA Fan has done some socking, previously, but has hopefully stopped -- as would be wise. There's a lot of unnecessary bitterness going on, here. – <font color="#28f">Luna Santin  (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, now might be a good time for NiveKJ13 to explain any relation between that account, WikiMemoryBot, and Witchy2006. – <font color="#28f">Luna Santin (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTE: has been blocked indefinitely for combat by . -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 23:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Shnitzled
Per these edits, and , can someone please indef block User:Shnitzled? Note also the block history, and this past ANI discussion, there is little evidence that this user wants to contribute anything meaningful to wikipedia. Stepopen (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely. Several previous blocks combined with those particularly harsh personal attacks certainly imply Wikipedia would be better without this individual. ~ mazca  talk 19:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How does it feel to know that I have about 19 other dorment accounts and over 50 IP's I can edit from? Ouch! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.27.196 (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's certainly the sort of thing that will bring Wikipedia to its knees. It's not like all of your edits and accounts can be fixed with a single click of a button, or anything. Dayewalker (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Shnitzled for anyone interested. -- Jayron  32  21:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You'd think someone who thinks they're so clever would understand that every time they post on a new IP, they simply allow that IP to be blocked. I mean I understand most sock-users frankly lack intelligence, but it's still embarrassing to watch. Half  Shadow  21:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Non neutral biased title
Hi I am requesting administrators to take a look into this article Syrian occupation of Lebanon, please read the talk page Talk:Syrian occupation of Lebanon. A number of editors such as myself have been trying to move the title to a more neutral title "Syrian military presence in Lebanon" that is more reflective of the historical and political reality. But unfortunately the administrators who have had the final say on this article tend to be very biased by virtue of the fact that they don't look at the arguments and evidence and sources presented and always argue that there is no argument while editors such as myself have presented endless sources and proof. We just had a discussion where editors voted 8-6 in favor of moving the title name, but one administrator came and reverted the name change. I am asking for neutral administrators who have not edited or are not involved in or have not taken sides with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to take an honest and sincere look into this, because as an editor on Wikipedia I know that NPOV is the rule and not POV and this title is inherently POV, Please check the arguments and sources provided. Here are the facts. 1) The Lebanese president in 1976 requested Syrian military intervention. Unlike the majority of occupations Syria did not enter Lebanon by itself. The head of the lebanese nation requested that Syria intervenes. 2) The Arab League voted in favor of sending a peace-keeping force that was to consist of mostly Syrian soldiers. Therefore Syria was given 2 mandates to intervene in Lebanon, whereas the other belligerents such as Israel was never given any official mandate. 3) ALL non-biased sources such as PBS have termed the Syrian military intervention as a "presence". 4) Whereas almost all sources presented from the opposing editors are all biased, for example the former Bush administration. Politicla partisans like Daniel Pipes and Alan Dersowitz. 5) A number of honest editors have correctly pointed out that Syria's mandate expired in 1982 and that after that it was a legitimate occupation, but the problem is that the article speaks of the first 6 years which has no legitimate evidence of an occupation.

Any suggestions or ideas to resolve this because the current title is obviously biased and contradictory of the historical events. I ask any administrator that believes in Wikipedia's neutrality to take a look into this.George Al-Shami (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any evidence the discussion was closed in an inappropriate manner. There seems to be evidentiary-based arguements being based which support both sides, and neither side in the discussion displayed controling a clear consensus.  Based on that, the standard is to maintain the status quo.  Any arguements on the substance of one side or another should occur at the article talk page itself, but as far as the administrative action, I can find no fault with it. -- Jayron  32  21:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey <font style="color:#000099">Jayron I appreciate your input, but the point that other editors and myself are trrying to make is that the status quo is biased; what can we do to fix or resolve that?.George Al-Shami (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously you do, or you wouldn't be asking to have the status quo changed. Find reliable, mainstream sources which clearly back up your point without the need to add any extra interpretation or reading into it; start an WP:RFC to bring extra eyes and uninvolved editors to comment.  That would be a good start.  -- Jayron  32  05:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Theserialcomma and continued hounding
User:Theserialcomma was blocked for five days not very long ago for baiting other users. The discussion can be viewed here.

Today, Theserialcomma decided to harass me on my talk page. He has been asked not to post on it before. In that message he accused me of misusing rollback, also managing to bring up the fact that I lost rollback a year ago. Incidentally, I used twinkle, not rollback, and using tools to remove malicious external links is very well within policy. Also incidentally, I redeemed myself and my rollback rights were restored. This is, I believe, the exact kind of baiting that the Wikipedia community voted to come down harder on.

He also nominated a user subpage I maintain, User:McJeff/BlockLog, for speedy deletion as an attack page, and when that was declined, for MfD. I have seen other users keep a page about their block logs, but that is up to the community to decide whether this is appropriate. However, I believe his nomination is bad faith in that he only nominated it because he is the user blocked for baiting that it mentions, and that it was deceitful to write the MfD trying to make it sound like he was concerned about someone else's welfare rather than for personal reasons. See also.

Just to show that this is a repeating pattern. A couple days ago, Theserialcomma decided to complain about a dispute he personally was not involved in, because one of the involved editors, User:Tothewolf, was someone he had previously been in a dispute with, and in fact was warned by Admin User:Jéské Couriano to stop - see this discussion on his talk page.

Aside from the fact that he has been warned for baiting and continues to do so, an issue I have here is that TSC is trying to reignite an old feud. The last hostile interaction I had with him dates back to October 29, 2008.

Incidentally, TSC also has a months old very polite request to stop hounding me in his talk page history. Mc JEFF  <sup style="color:black;">(talk)  03:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * i expect User:Jéské Couriano to come in here any minute and block me. he's been harassing me and threatening to ban for me for a while now. i hope this community will review the situation before User:Jéské Couriano jumps the gun. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Listen to me good, TSC. You already have several users who are on your ass, myself included, because you repeatedly harass other users. I am just about tired of seeing your name pop up here every week in connection with another fragging accusation of harassment/hounding/stalking. And your response to each one is to pull a CofS or otherwise marginalize the complaint. I suggest you do yourself a favor and stop harassing other users.  If you do not, someone will block you (but it won't be an involved administrator like myself). -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 04:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

oh jeske couriano, how i knew you'd show up here. first you accuse me of harassment without any diffs, just a link to my contributions (that is too vague, my personal harassment-admin), and then you, a representative of wikipedia, make an attack on me by comparing me to something allegedly to do with scientology, which is totally irrelevant to this conversation. if you have a grudge against scientology, leave me out of it. and if you are going to accuse people of harassment, you should provide diffs. and finally, stay away from me. really. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which I do until you show up here again as the subject or starter of a thread. Your whole paragraph above is a dodge. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 04:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * you and i have no feud, mcjeff. i left you a personalized message on your talk page about what i perceived to be rollback misuse on an article we both edit. that was a good faith message. you have lost rollback before for similar abuse, so there should be no further misuse. and you did use real rollback, not twinkle rollback (see []). you are mistaken about that. second of all, i nominated your subpage for deletion because it's an attack page on me and serves no purpose for the encyclopedia. perhaps the community could view and decide for themselves if that helps wikipedia in any way.
 * and finally, when you mention in your attack subpage that i (unnamed) was blocked for 5 days, what does that have anything to do with you being blocked a year ago? because i was blocked for 'baiting' a year after you were blocked, you think that's necessary to mention in your subpage? please. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I thought you meant this edit when you posted. Mc  JEFF  <sup style="color:black;">(talk)  03:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * mcjeff has informed the admin who blocked me for 30 days for 'baiting' User:Nukes4Tots []. he is clearly shopping for support for getting me blocked. note, i was blocked for 30 days for 'baiting' a user User:Nukes4Tots who's been blocked up to 10 times under various sock accounts, but it was my first block ever on wikipedia, after a year of being in good standing. the block was reduced to 5 days based on the community saying it was an excessive block. furthermore, i hope that neither jeske couriano nor georgewilliamherbert get involved in this. i have no faith in their abilities to treat me fairly. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * i knew jeske couriano was after me, but i didn't realize he would be this fast: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FUser%3AMcJeff%2FBlockLog&diff=307099215&oldid=307091309. wow. jeske, leave me alone. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Complaint Withdrawn (and struck through) after discussion on TSC's talk page and an amicable solution. Mc  JEFF  <sup style="color:black;">(talk)  04:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

75.5.239.210
User:75.5.239.210 has spent the last hour plus removing phrases like "award winning" from articles. Is there a remedy for this? Deserted Cities 05:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

1) Warn. 2) Wait to see if warnings stop him. 3) Report to WP:AIV if warnings are ineffective. -- Jayron  32  05:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw this IP editing a few of the articles I have watchlisted. The user is simply following WP:ACTOR. —  Σ  xplicit 06:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really, they are simply deleting information that speaks to each subject's notability that indeed should be in the lede. If not in the first sentence then so be it but deletion is unhelpful. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   08:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've already filed a report on this IP at Content noticeboard, 2 and a half hours ago. Unfortunately, as is the case with most of those off the wall noticeboards, no reply or action has been taken since. S/he isn't following WP:ACTOR because if he was, instead of removing the "Emmy/Golden Globe award winning" totally, S/he would be moving it out of the first sentence further down in the lede per ''Remove lead sentence mention of "______ Award-winning" and/or "______ Award-nominated". This can and should be included in lead sections, but not in lead sentences. Please change leads to include mention of major awards, but do so in context.''. -      allstar ▼ echo     07:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And after leaving h/im/er a note on h/is/er talk page, and after undoing many of the articles, h/she reverted me. Someone else feel free to have fun with this one. -      allstar ▼ echo     08:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved archived thread
A thread has been auto-archived before it was formally closed: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive556. Can someone sort that out, and perhaps an uninvolved admin close it? Rd232 talk 08:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Threads get archived without being formally closed all the time. This page would be huge without it. Why should this thread be any different? Can't any further discussion be done on Wikifan's talkpage? --Atlan (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the best way forward is to make a report at WP:AE and point to the recently archived discussion, as there is a clear case for discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. There's posibly a better chance of finding someone uninvolved there as well. Kevin (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Alleged incivility and soapboxing by Keepscases
Moved from AN Viridae Talk 00:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alan16&oldid=306328221#Oppose and #Neutral. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 05:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This doesn't belong here. Are you proposing a ban?  Malinaccier ( talk ) 05:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am helping to expose what this particular user is doing, to a larger audience than WT:RFA. I do not find that such behavior is consistent with building an encyclopedia, therefore the user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and should consequently be banned, or at least blocked.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 05:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A link is sufficient. I recommend removing the text as it's distracting and will likely lead to more admins ignoring this than paying attention.  Also, may I recommend Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Keepscases makes the comments above that Anyone associated with Atheism is a member of a "hateful group". He states that anyone who is an atheist, and not ashamed of it is a "condescending and confrontational" person. It can be read from other comments that Atheism is not a 'belief' to be respected like a religion is. How much of this Dominionism-based disruption and bad faith are we expected to endure here? By his logic, I should oppose every single RfA candidate who displays, or has ever displayed a userbox identifying membership in a faith in an irreverent, or humorous, or even sarcastic, manner. That will certainly reduce the number of candidates if it catches on. ThuranX (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, why is this here? No, I didn't move the comments asking why was it at ANI but I think the point was clear nonetheless.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me be more specific. He's been here almost two years.  So why should his very recent behavior in two RFAs be justification for a complete ban as opposed to a discussion at WPT:RFA about limiting his discussion at RFAs? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As of about four days ago (due to toolserver replag), 54.90% of this user's edits were in the Wikipedia namespace, with eight of the top ten edited pages in that namespace being related to RfA and all of the edits in Wikipedia talk namespace being related to RfA.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 06:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Setting aside the minor issue of what the right venue for discussion is, a ban from RfA would sound like the appropriate measure to me. Looking at his contributions, I have a feeling he's been running a very long, very successful troll, knowing that Wikipedia has a high proportion of atheists and that tempers run high on RfAs. The trolling could be motivated by actual hatred for atheists, or he could just be doing it for, as they say, the lulz. But one thing that is clear is that these opposes do not contribute to the discussion at RfA, they undermine it. rspεεr (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If only you were as concerned about the reasons why administrator hopefuls might think disrespectful and confrontational attitudes are acceptable, as you are with the user who thinks such attitudes aren't compatible with adminship. When people like you claim that it's the jerks who are being persecuted and suggest that it's me who's the hateful one, I feel like I'm in Bizarro World. Keepscases (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Collapsed long copy-paste Badger Drink (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This should be at ANI if it is a ban discussion..... Malinaccier ( talk ) 16:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? I think ban discussions are more appropriate here than at the shitstorm that is ANI. See previous discussion on this here: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive199. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 20:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether or not this is Incivility and soapboxing, the user has a right to express his opinion. However, there are some points that are for sure:
 * 1) Keepscases's comments do not address individual candidates, the point of RfA
 * 2) Keepscases's comments have incited much conflict
 * 3) Keepscases asks many "unique" questions on RfA
 * 4) The user has done nothing but do this lately

 Triplestop  x3  16:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(Begin random lurker's opinion...) I have no dog in this fight, and no opinion one way or the other on what should be done. However, I think it's important to point out that the issue Keepscases seems to have is not with Atheists per se, but rather with the userbox that says "Keep your imaginary friends to yourself". The reason he brought it up at the RFA is that the candidate seems to have recently removed it from his userpage, which would appear on the surface to be an attempt to "cover up" something that would potentially have a negative impact on the RFA (as opposed to removing it because one no longer agrees with the sentiment expressed). Could he have argued his point more tactfully? Sure...but I think it's important to note that the disagreement seems to have its source in how the userbox was phrased rather than the actual sentiment behind it. Dgcopter (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's seems this discussion supports your theory. He should just file an MfD and get the box deleted if he hates it so much. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not an advocate of censorship. I think users should be able to create and display any userboxes they wish, but any user who thinks posting a disrespectful userbox is a good idea is an unsuitable candidate. Keepscases (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm increduluous that people are actually proposing to ban me. I'm not doing anything wrong.  Your beef should be with people who insist my long-standing, very sincere opinions are not valid...most of whom blatantly misrepresent said opinions to try and undermine my credibility.  I just now supported an atheist who appears to have no connections to publicly-displayed elitism and hatefulness, and I have done so in the past. Keepscases (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That does not excuse your long history of disruption.  Triplestop  x3  00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All I do is post my vote, guy, but don't expect me to stay quiet if people want to argue I don't have the right. Keepscases (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The right to do what? What you're doing is basically the definition of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Even if all you were doing was fighting against a userbox (in which case you wouldn't have seen anything wrong with Tedder), RfA is not the venue to fight against a userbox. rspεεr (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't fight against any userbox, I oppose candidates who think it's a good idea to display it. I do not think any such user should represent Wikipedia in any position of power, "no big deal" be damned. I don't disrupt anything.  All I do is cast my vote and then defend myself against people who attack me for it. Keepscases (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Nineteen edits alone to Requests for adminship/Alan16, seventeen edits to Requests for adminship/Tedder, ten edits to Requests for adminship/Gordonrox24 2. These are just from the past couple weeks; the pattern has been evident for a long, long time. How many "keepscases oppose" threads are we gonna start? When someone generates as much mass drama as he does, it's clear whether they are a net positive or a net negative to the project, regardless of motivation. Highly support a topic ban from RfA or related threads. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  00:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ECx7)Really? You are surprised that few other editors are voicing support for your bigotry? You're actively discriminating against a large, and growing, group of people, based on their beliefs. This is exactly the same as discriminating against the Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, seventh day Adventists, southern baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, protestants or any other christian group which proselytizes. I don't see you doing that; I see the opposite. Why should we keep around someone whose attitude is 'anyone who isn't a christian shouldn't be an admin, especially people who think really differently than I do about something which has nothing to do with Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's you who should be banned, for completely misrepresenting my beliefs and actions. There is nothing wrong with being an atheist.  I defy you to show me one edit in which I say there is. Keepscases (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Support a topic ban Besides the issue of having almost all of your edits to RfA religion based, you also repeatedly make inane edits such as these. This is 100% unproductive and does nothing but incite conflict.  Triplestop  x3  00:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, because the idea of actually making a potential administrator think about something new/unexpected, and give voters a little insight into his or her personality/demeanor, is grounds for a ban. Tell me, exactly what conflict did the edits you mention bring about? Keepscases (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * they didnt yet bring conflict but they were definitely a little silly and not really relevent to his duties as an admin. usually the questions show how they would interpret policy and improve Wikipedia nad not how they would cast a movie about Wikipedia!! Smith Jones 00:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)Right as always, SJ! Let's slay these misconceptions about a Wikipedia movie!  Skinwalker (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if you go through my questions, you'll find plenty of instances in which candidates were sincerely appreciative for the opportunity to answer them and/or they were helpful in voters' decision-making. The one candidate chose not to answer my movie question, and you know what?  Everything was fine.  There was no drama. Keepscases (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Smith Jones 00:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)::Thats a fair point, and I agree wthat you dont deserve to be sanctioned because of THAT (I dont know about the other things too much) but i can see how that might be constured as being part of a pattern of mocking behavior. you have to see this from evryones perspective since this a community-oriented and circumobular project which sometimes things that you thing are WP:FUNNY are actually being seen as violating WP:CIVIL due to too much sarcasm or Smith Jones 00:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now supporting a full ban Keepscases was already blocked indefinitely for asking blatant, inane questions and was warned. See here for examples. And he still continues to this day. I don't know what is going on, does he not get it or is he deliberately trying to troll? He clearly still hasn't got a clue and given his attack against Thurnax, it isn't likely he will get one anytime soon. Given that his edits to articles are all minor changes, and his inane posts at the Help Desk recently, I don't see that this user will turn around and go do something productive if he is banned from RfA alone.  Triplestop   x3  00:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Per below  Triplestop   x3  01:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly what "attack against Thurnax" are you referring to? He accused me of something I've never done.  As for my "inane posts at the Help Desk", I posted there looking to learn something.  That is inappropriate why? Keepscases (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a no brainer to me.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 00:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that, as the things I'm being accused of are easily disproven. Keepscases (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How are they disproven? Can you explain, please?-- The LegendarySky Attacker 01:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been explaining throughout these discussions. The main accusations against me seem to be that I am prejudiced against atheists and that I cause drama.  Neither are true. Keepscases (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I supposed I'm a bit biased (seeing as I was an active participant in the argument at Alan16's RFA), but I don't see Keepscases as a positive contributor. Shappy  talk  01:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, we've given him/her way too many chances. Like Kmweber and DougsTech, people who troll RFA should be topic banned.  Shappy   talk  01:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Outside views will be the judge of that.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 01:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. RfA is just like any other topic area. If an otherwise productive editor is unable to participate positively in one topic area, we can and should remove them. Protonk (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC) See 'vote' below. Protonk (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Protonk, it may actually be worth your time looking at the section below.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 01:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I trust whoever closes this to be mindful of both discussion and vote, but thanks for the heads up. Protonk (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this thread wasn't an official topic-ban thread. For there to be a discrete community-sanctioned ban, we need an obvious consensus, not the willy-nilly discussion above. However, you obviously may participate as you see fit. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  03:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC?
I'm just reiterating this outside of my comment in the oppose section, as What we need at this point is not an ANI thread, but an RfC. At the moment, this is just a cacophony of various archives, failed proposals, yelling at each other, and hard feelings. I think that we need to organize this data into an RfC, which would be much more likely to return a result than here. ( X! ·  talk )  · @997  · 22:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Given there has been no consensus here for an admin to do anything, an RfC might be a helpful next step. This said, so far I see no clear consensus that within an RfA, soapboxy questions, alikened across many RfAs, should be kept out of the discussion or otherwise banned. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You may find the RfC at Requests for comment/Keepscases.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for Keepscases topic ban from RfA
There is no consensus for this. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Might as well officially figure out if this has community support.

Proposal: is topic-banned from WP:RFA-related pages.

Support

 * 1) Support as nominator. My comment above and a quick look at Keepscases contribution history, along with the above thread, should be sufficient. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  01:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Comparing this to DougsTech: While DougsTech's opposes are not very constructive, they at least don't cause problems, and after all, he is entitled to his opinion. Though I find opposing based on atheist userboxes to be groundless, Keepscases does have a right to his opinion (an not unreasonable argument could be made that they are inflammatory), but asking such questions bites the candidates and does adversely affect the RfA. (Sorry this was poorly worded, with so many negatives.) -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Definitely. All that is done here is disruptive.  Shappy   talk  01:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as above. Textbook case of WP:POINT. rspεεr (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support giving Keepscases a change to be productive outside rfa.  Triplestop  x3  01:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Enough. This is not because he is attacking atheism, it is because he has done nearly nothing aside from this constant disruption. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I haven't been involved in the discussion, but I've seen enough. Jeni  ( talk ) 01:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Suppport Even though I think that some people in this discussion have had a knee-jerk reaction against "anti-atheism", when in my opinion the template isn't pro-atheism, it's anti-faith. But RfA is not the place to bring up that argument. Banning the editor from an area where they are causing routine disruption is both appropriate and fair, it allows them to edit constructively elsewhere if they choose to and also to start or participate in an MfD of the userbox they dislike so much. --  At am a chat 01:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong Support, although repetition of such behavior after being blocked for it deserves a stronger remedy (that is, I prefer the proposal below to this one). Keepscases' disruptive behavior at WP:RFA has gone on for far too long.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 02:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support based on the diffs provided by Mythdon down below in the This is distracting to the above, and premature. collapsed discussion. TIMMEH! - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  03:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Did my providing of diffs make your investigation easy? -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  03:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly helped. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  03:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good! I hope it's helping the other users. I'm glad I took the time to provide that much evidence. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  03:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree that behavior at RfA thus far has been disruptive enough to warrant a topic ban. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Kindly provide one edit of mine you believe was "disruptive" and not merely a statement of my opinion and/or a defense/clarification resulting from an attack on me. Keepscases (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A list of diffs of your behavior is right here. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  05:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And none of them support the allegation. If you disagree, be specific. Keepscases (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is disruptive. "Who would you tell?" What has that got to do with anything? And so is this. Voting so the numbers look pretty is not disruptive? Opposing per age is disruptive - if they are a competent editor, there age is irrelevant. This is just stupid. And there are plenty more. And thanks to Mythdon for the list of diffs. Alan16 (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh--if you're proposing that anyone who makes light-hearted or seemingly frivolous edits should be banned, be forewarned that you'd be taking out a veritable all-star team of Wikipedia users. The edits you provide weren't disruptive anyway.  Keepscases (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think "Who would you tell?" is a productive question, and one which would decide whether to vote for them or not, then you should certainly not be allowed to vote again. If you did this sort of thing once in a while, then it would be fine, but you don't. This isn't one or two frivolous remarks, it is a few dozen. Alan16 (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A question like that can be very useful to understand someone's personality/character/demeanor. Have you ever been to a job interview?  Anyway, I am allowed to ask whatever questions I wish. Keepscases (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I have. And however you try to defend it, that is a pointless question that helps you judge them not at all. Alan16 (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to criticize questions with the same fervor when you're interviewing for jobs. It will get you far. Keepscases (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Well, I certainly support it, to the surprise of no one who's seen my comments at the related RfAs. Please understand that merely displaying a userbox that simply and politely states that one is a member of the Athiest Wikigroup is enough to disqualify an admin candidate in his view. Why? Because there are apparently some other atheist userboxes he doesn't like. But rather than try and delete them, he seeks to ban any and all self-declaring atheists from adminship, per WP:POINT. Anyone who self-declares as a non-believer therefore becomes non-admissible. It's prejudice. It's intolerance. I look south from our border and see this kind of religious fundamentalism ruining a country I used to have respect for: I don't want it infecting this project. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * May I just add that WP:NPA expressly prohibits "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would never, *never* "seek to ban any and all self-declaring atheists from adminship". Your contempt of me based on things I would never do is becoming tiresome. Keepscases (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) If the user can't be indefinitely blocked, then a topic ban should certainly be done. This disruption can not be tolerated, and it is much worse than DougsTech ever was. I support a topic ban, though I would prefer an indefinite block. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  03:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All I do is vote. Why do you fault me for the disruption?  I have a right to believe that offensive userboxes show a candidate has no business representing Wikipedia. Keepscases (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether you believe that is irrelevant. In RfA, you're suppose to participate based on the behavior of the candidate, but more importantly, whether they'll abuse the tools or not. Comments there are suppose to be relevant to the candidates qualifications for adminship. You are not doing that. Instead of asking nonsense questions, you should be asking things like "how would you have closed this AfD?", or "what is your understanding of this policy?". Those are the questions you're supposed to be asking, but those are just examples. If you look through previous RfA's you'll find the questions you should be asking. Instead of doing that, you ask "Kindly demonstrate your grammar skills by explaining at least one way Quadell's nomination could be improved. ", and "Were these definitions provided by you? ". And as for your comments in the "support"/"oppose" sections, instead of making comments like "I do not agree with this user's positions on singular 'they', usage of quotation marks, and spacing between sentences. ", you should be explaining whether or not the candidate will abuse the tools and whether or not the candidate behaves consistently. You have a right to your opinions, but to express the opinions you are expressing at RfA is disruptive and irrelevant to the candidate. Let me be as clear as possible here: Your comments are disruptive to RfA, and it is best to ban you from all RfA participation to prevent further disruption. Until you learn your lesson, you just can't be at RfA. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  04:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is telling that you have to bring up things that have nothing to do with this discussion in order to try and appear that you're "right". But--those questions were asked for specific reasons and were appreciated by the users in question, and shame on you for trying to tell me what my voting criteria should be (would you like to live in a country that did that?)  Keepscases (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not telling you how to vote. I am telling you to vote within the relevance to the candidate, and you should do the same when asking questions. Whether or not the candidate appreciated the questions is irrelevant, as they disrupt the RfA. Your participation is no better than the participation of the now blocked DougsTech. After all, There was a discussion about whether to topic ban DougsTech, and let me tell you that that user didn't get nearly as much support as you are getting for such a ban at this rate. DougsTech didn't get topic banned, but did later get blocked. Let me tell you that if I were an administrator, and if I saw you engaging in this behavior, I would block you, no questions asked. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  04:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, as Tan is predictably on the money here. Alternative option, allow Keepscases to vote and ask questions, but only by proxy of a crat (who will then obviously recuse from closing or voting themselevs) who must approve of the question/vote rationale in order to vet it for drama-inducement. In six months, revisit topicban to see if Keepscases can be trusted to edit on their own at RfA without creating drama. → ROUX   ₪  03:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that will work. Having somebody vote for the user will not be a good idea. I think the user should learn on their own. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  03:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Per my above, for the sake of transparency. Also, note Tan's important comment below.  The alternative to this is that the community go through this rigmarole each and every time Keepscases feels like disrupting an RfA.  We eventually learned our lesson w/ Kurt and RfA was better off for it.  This is analogous. Protonk (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have the right to vote based on my criteria that I have made perfectly clear time and time again. Why do you blame me for the disruption, and not the users who attack me for my opinion, usually twisting my words to make me appear anti-atheist?  Why am I the bad guy, Protonk? Keepscases (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Keepscases' votes have always struck me as single-minded and POINTy. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 04:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "POINTy" implies that I am intentionally disrupting Wikipedia. I am not.  I vote based on the fact that I think users who select intentionally offensive userboxes have no business being administrators. Keepscases (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether you are intentionally doing this is irrelevant at this point. You have a right to your opinions, but that opinion is not an opinion that you should be expressing at RfA. If I was an administrator, let me assure you that I would block you. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  04:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good to know; see you at your future RfA. Keepscases (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You won't be there, because if I see you there, and if you are topic banned, you'll be reported, period. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  04:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't plan on being banned, as I'm not doing anything wrong. Don't fool yourself into thinking that this "people who don't respect Keepscases" convention gets to decide my fate. Keepscases (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have to plan on getting banned, because the community has power on Wikipedia. They can actually decide your "fate" by a simple majority consensus, which you seem to find hard to believe based on your recent comment. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  05:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for you, this is not a representative cross-section of the Wikipedia community. This is a bunch of people who hate me in here, most of whom completely misrepresent my views and actions.  A lynch mob alone can't get someone banned here. Keepscases (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * These people in this discussion have absolute power to direct you out of further participation in any RfA, and have the power to tell an administrator "please block", and that administrator will act fast, and will ask you no questions. A possible future block for a violation will prove this point. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  05:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet, as much as it may pain you to hear this, I have exactly the same rights as a current Wikipedia user as you do, so you may want to get off your high horse, quit flexing your cyber-muscles, and go away. At some point, Mythdon, when you keep sounding off on every comment that I make anywhere, you have to understand it is you who is responsible for the drama. Keepscases (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, we're both responsible for this drama. If you respond, you have fault. If I respond, I have fault. Not all users have the same rights. Some users are placed under editing restrictions, and you're just about ready to get a restriction when a user closes this as successful. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  05:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The extent to which you're fantasizing that I get blocked is more than a little scary. Keepscases (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It will happen should you violate your future topic ban, if it becomes effective. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  05:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you just have your orgasm already and go away? Keepscases (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not going away until this is done, and when it's done, your participation at RfA is over. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  05:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) (ec x3) While I 'get' that Keepscases claims to only object to outspoken Atheists, i.e., only those who make public their view that people of faith believe in fairy tales, this to me is a sign not of his view that they should be 'respectful', but of an expectation that they should be all out deferential, and that by his actions he is actively working toward a 'chilling effect' against atheists. It is that subversion of WP, and the fact that he's voted against non-offending atheists as well, that leads me to this vote. He wants the atheists to shut up, keep wuiet, and stop speaking out. Well, once theyv'e come for all the atheists, who will they come for next, and will anyoen be left to speak up for me when he, and his, come for me? ThuranX (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been on Wikipedia for years, and I'm sorry, but that is the single dumbest thing I have ever seen posted. I think people who like offensive userboxes are unsuitable for adminship, and you're comparing me to Hitler. Keepscases (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. You saw my Jewish Userbox, and now try to bait me by suggesting a Jew made a Hitler comparison. I see what you did there. Very shallow and transparent. I like the attempt to turn the persecutor into the persecuted by sugggesting a persecuted is now immorally behaving like hispersecutor of old. Very Interesting. And a transparent bid to someone get my vote ignored. Nice try. ThuranX (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Get over yourself. Your little statement there was based on an easily-recognizable quotation about Nazi Germany.  It sucks when you try and put one over on someone and fail, huh? Keepscases (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What the fuck are you going on about? You said I compared you to Hitler, I did no such thing. I used an old quote about the cumulative effect of giving in to a Chilling Effect. That it came out of the Nazi era is thoroughly irrelevant to my point. IF you really think that's me saying your Hitler, let me say it this way: My family ran from Hitler. And you sir are no Adolf Hitler. You're a paranoid little man, afraid that if you are exposed to too many new ideas, you may have to actually face them and think about them. I never, in any way, compared you to Hitler. Get over yourself. I stand by my assertion: Not content to insult ONE set of beliefs, you now are either looking for bigger fish, or so defensive that you're now lashing out at anyone NOT LIKE YOU. Bigot. ThuranX (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're just making an ass out of yourself now. Feel free to continue if you like.  Note to all: I don't want this.  I'm being compared to Nazis by someone who first denies it and then claims I'm a bigot for bringing it up.  All I want to do is oppose RfAs from users who like offensive userboxes. Keepscases (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came... is required reading for anyone who might buy this bullshit that ThuranX wasn't comparing me to the Nazis. Keepscases (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Chilling effect (term). Read it. That is my intent by that, and you know it. That it happens to make you look like a Nazi is your own conscience telling you something. YOu seek to make a class of people shut up and hide their presence. I simply pointed out what will happen when you're done with that group. That you suddenly see in that statement a comparison between your attitude and that of that Nazis is entirely of your own inference, not my implication. That you suddenly choose to accuse a Jewish Editor of Godwin'ing this, hoping for the Irony points, just shows how desperate you are. Let me help you out. this is only 6 to 12 hours from a SNOW closing, especially given your tactic for antagonizing every single voter, which is get a different campaign of intimidation. ThuranX (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But yet all you're going to get is either a block or a topic ban from RfA. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  05:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it make you feel powerful to pretend you're in control here? Keepscases (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We the community are in control as one. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  05:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thuran, the "bigot" comment was blockworthy, so please don't repeat anything like it. And I suggest all of you end this line of discussion right now, because it's headed nowhere fast. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Absolutely. →<font style="color:black">javért <font style="color:red">stargaze 05:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good word! That word is what I think too. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  05:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I really thought I was going to oppose this; even though Keepscases questions are often off-the-wall, they do provide interesting answers and a bit of levity. I didn't see a problem with the majority of Mythdon's links below, but those that are a problem are a serious problem and I hope this disturbing pattern doesn't show up anywhere else in Keepscases editing.  Specifically, Keepscases seems to have difficulty with editor's personal religious beliefs and has gone so far as to attack other editors (examples here and here.  Other comments that indicate an inability to put aside personal prejudices in this area are, ,  and this is just the past few months of RfAs.  RfA is a difficult enough process; there is no need to subject editors to attacks based on personal religious beliefs. Shell   babelfish 05:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Every single link you provided was based on userboxes, Shell. Part of me wishes that religious groups had offensive userboxes that I would of course oppose in a similar fashion...but I guess a bigger part of me is thankful that they don't. Keepscases (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So? Can you explain how that justifies calling someone "pompous, unprofessional and disrespectful"? If their userboxes offend you, its clearly possible to say so without name-calling. Since you don't see a problem with this hyper-focus on religious beliefs (which has no bearing on suitability for the mop), I don't see any course but removing you from participation where you're causing the disruption. Shell  babelfish 05:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's so annoying when people claim they support the concept of freedom of speech, but pretend there's something wrong with judging people based on what they say. Keepscases (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is easily your strongest argument, and why someone might be willing to protect your privilege to oppose candidates based on userboxes. I don't feel that your opposes are limited to that (despite your claims here to the contrary) and I don't feel that your opposes represent a sensible way to go about criticism of candidates. Beyond this, you seem to refuse to accept that you might not be going about things the right way. Protonk (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Right" and "wrong" are arbitrary, and userboxes are contributions that should be evaluated unless someone else put them there. Which opposes of mine do you believe I haven't been straightforward about? Keepscases (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keepscases, you might want to take a breath and realize that attacking folks who support your topic ban isn't doing your case any favors. I never mentioned free speech, so lets see if we can get back to the point. Do you have an answer to why you feel personal attacks are acceptable?  Can you show us where you've gone through proper channels to object to these userboxes or start a community discussion about them?  If you just keep on indicating you don't respect the concerns other editors have raised about your behavior, then you're painting us into a corner. Shell   babelfish 06:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My so-called "attacks", and by "attacks" I guess you mean single "oppose" votes on RfA's, were based quite clearly on attitudes that the users in question chose to express through their selected userboxes. And, as I have said countless times, I am no advocate of censorship, and think users have the right to create and display whatever userboxes they wish...but they should damned sure be judged on them.  If I had a userbox stating (and I apologize, this is intentionally going to be offensive) "Any NIGGER Wikipedia user is gonna be MY SLAVE", would you EVER consider promoting me to adminship?  Because, admittedly that was over-the-top, but you need to understand I find certain confrontational atheist userboxes *really, really offensive*.  I don't want to censor the userboxes.  I'm thankful I get to see which Wikipedians think they're a good idea.  Keepscases (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take this to talk to avoid cluttering up this page further :) Shell  babelfish 06:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The talk referred to above is at User talk:Keepscases and User talk:Shell_Kinney.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 14:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support My concern is not so much that there is a violation of WP:POINT, but that the editor persists in labouring the point. An opposition to a candidate for displaying a particular userbox which may inflame the sensibilities of other editors is legitimate - but using that !vote to focus upon that aspect of the RfA is not; either the premise of the oppose will influence other respondees or it will not - it does not need bringing up repeatedly. It is evident that Keepcases is unable to understand this, since they are engaging in the same behaviours in this discussion here. Disagreeing and explaining your stance at every oppose vote is disruptive. The other point of interesting questions is as troubling, in that there seems to be an element of elitism in requiring some arcane standards of English or similar - and I say arcane because while this is the English language Wikipedia there are very different cultures using different grammatical constructions. Simply, RfA is a discussion regarding the trustworthiness and experience of the applicant in requesting extra tools and not a battleground for idealogical/religious viewpoints, nor a dissertion upon grammatical styles. Keepcases appears confused in this, and should therefore be required to avoid those pages until they can contribute in a more appropriate manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - "No member of "WikiProject Atheism" should represent Wikipedia as an administrator" is an invalid reason for opposing adminship. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Oh hell yeah. BigDunc  13:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak support. I was going to oppose per WereSpielChequers. I still endorse everything WSC said except the bit about former membership in the National Secular Society and being a "lapsed atheist" (not sure what that means, exactly). I consider some of Keepscases' RfA questions to be more problematic than the problematic userboxes. But what really made me switch to supporting the RfA ban was when I realised that apart from a few trivial fig leaf edits Keepscases seems to be a single purpose account for voting on RfA. That's bad enough in itself, but it's particularly bad when it's reasonable to assume that the voting behaviour is controlled by ideology/religion. – I also note this (unrelated to RfA), which suggests to me that this user is already well on the slow route to a permaban. Hans Adler 13:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While you may consider that assumption "reasonable", it's still incorrect. I believe users who choose intentionally offensive userboxes are unsuited for adminship, and I'll oppose every one of them, no matter what ideology is involved.  That only atheism-related boxes have been involved is a reflection on the users responsible for them, not on me. Keepscases (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't talk such nonsense. It is only atheists you oppose because of userboxes. this this, and this surely portray the same supposed elitism that you think certain atheist userboxes do. However I've not seen you crusade against these userboxes. Alan16 (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I've ever even seen any of those userboxes, and they are statements of belief and not confrontational. It's okay to believe in loving Jesus, it's okay to believe in creationism, it's okay to believe in atheism.  It's not okay to be disrespectful to others. Keepscases (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Real men love Jesus" is easily as confrontational as "keep your imaginary friends to yourself". Why will you not just admit that you have something against atheists? Alan16 (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I don't have anything against atheists; why will you not just admit that you can't seem to argue against me without using strawmen? "Real men love Jesus" is not aimed at people who don't love Jesus, nor does it suggest there's anything wrong with them.  Whereas using the term "imaginary friends" towards religious people is intentionally confrontational and disrespectful. Keepscases (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The use of "real men" implies that people who do not love jesus are not real men. If "imgainry friends" is confrontational, then so is the "real men" one. Alan16 (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Both are wanton, empty personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, unless anyone can provide examples in which I've failed to speak up against RfA candidates who displayed the userboxes Alan16 cites, none of this is relevant anyway. Keepscases (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Actually, there is a big difference. "Keep your imaginary friends to yourself" is a brilliant insult against believers, optimised for maximum impact. "Real men love Jesus" can be read as a negative statement about men who don't "love Jesus", but I think it makes much more sense to read it as a self-ironic statement that plays with (1) the stereotype of men with strong religious feelings being soft, and (2) the homoerotic overtones that stem from the fact that Jesus was a man, and which create a tension with the conservative attitudes that are particularly common among religious people. Also note that it fits the general pattern exploited in Real Men Don't Eat Quiche. For me this is a typical statement of a young Christian who is looking for his place between the conservative norms of his community and the much more open-minded culture among his friends.
 * I was aware of all this, but it's no reason to change my opinion. I did not support the bans in the previous somewhat analogous situations, but there are just enough differences to make me support a topic ban in this case, especially the danger of polarisation along religious lines where religion simply shouldn't matter and the danger of an actual impact on RfA outcomesHans Adler 17:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. RfA is already dramatic enough without Keepscases; we need people who throw water on the flames, not gasoline. -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs) 14:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "Everyone is entitled to their opinion" is like the First Amendment: on paper, you can do anything, but there are actually restrictions to prevent the abuse of power. Now, seeing as both Kmweber and DougsTech were eventually both kicked off Wikipedia even though people insisted "oh, they're just saying their opinion!", I think we should actually learn from our mistakes and topic ban him before he does something which would warrant a site-wide ban. Sceptre (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable with your analogy, given that I'm not making any false statements and not looking to abuse any power. All I expect is one vote, just like everyone else gets. Keepscases (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * However, you're not voting or asking questions based on the candidate. If you would just do that, we wouldn't even be here, and you would have nothing to worry about. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  16:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support He appears to have a bias against atheists or maybe it is only just one userbox, but that doesn't matter because either way it shows that he doesn't actually read the RfA before voting oppose, and I don't think this is the sort of person we want voting in RfAs. Alan16 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support (mind, I don't "self identify" as atheist). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, though I don't exactly have much to add, given the completeness of the reasons above. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose as I am not doing anything wrong. I have nothing against atheism, no matter how many users try to paint me as such, and I have the right to vote in RfA's and the right to defend myself against attackers.  I propose discussions on how to discourage others from badgering me about my votes. Keepscases (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You said above that the accusations against you are "easily disproven". It would be helpful to your case to see some evidence of this.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 01:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose Full disclosure, I haven't edited in about 9 months, but I still do a lot of reading on various policy and process pages, and I'm finding it impossible not to step in here, so here I am. First of all, let's put to bed the notion that this user is voting based on candidates' religious beliefs. This all stems from a higly inflammitory and inappropriate userbox displayed by the athiesm wikiproject. Frankly, I'd be shocked if anyone here thought this box, which blatenly insults anyone who believes in any form of higher being, was appropriate for display anywhere. The idea that an oppose based on a user endorsing such divisive and insulting content is worthy of a ban is silly, even if you don't agree with Keepscases views or methods of voicing them. If a Cristian RFA hopeful displayed a userbox that stated "Anyone who doesn't believe in God is doomed to burn in hell for the rest of eternity", I'd expect an oppose or two. <font color=#000099>Bleeding  <font color=#0066FF>Blue  01:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC) To Neutral per discussion below. <font color=#000099>Bleeding  <font color=#0066FF>Blue  04:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What someone puts on their userpage doesn't need to have anything to do with their article contributions etc.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 01:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More to the point, Keepscases has opposed people simply for being members of WikiProject Atheism, even if they never displayed one of the userboxes that are supposedly the sole problem. rspεεr (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More to the point, that is what I was just saying. What someone's personal views are should not be as significant at an RfA as their relevant contributions to the project.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 01:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I say if you have have a problem with the userbox itself, nominate it for deletion via the Mfd process but the userbox itself shouldn't be used support or oppose anyone. Creating drama around it, even more so. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  03:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Opposed to shotgun witch trials on general principles. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In favor of block. - Changing to support. Block discussion closed. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  02:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm in the clear minority here, but so be it. While I disagree with Keepscases' opinion, I think he is entitled to it.  Personally I don't think it is right for the community to say certain kinds of opposes aren't allowed at RfA.  The only reason Keepscases' !votes cause a lot of drama is because editors feel the need to reply and say how dumb they think the !vote is.  If people just ignored the !vote, much like the closing crat is likely to do, then there would be no drama.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I support the right of anypne to come up with any grounds they feel like to oppose an RfA and the right of the community to summarily ignore them. Viridae Talk  05:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I thank you, but why should I be ignored? Why shouldn't my vote count as much as anyone else's?  If I'm out of line, won't the votes reflect that?  I don't like where your slippery slope leads to.  Keepscases (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That wasn't directed at you specifically, but at the ether. As to why your vote shouldn't count, that is up to the community poor some some representative portion of it, to decide. Viridae Talk 05:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I for one believe everyone's vote should count. If a user's position is unsupported, the votes should reflect that. Keepscases (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for the most part Keepscases has been spot on about the userboxes and while I have found some of his other conduct trivial at times it has been repeatedly sanctioned at WT:RFA as acceptable. Icewedge (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose Anyone with an account can NotVote for any reason, or no reason at all. Merely having a numbered comment SHOULD NOT MEAN ANYTHING in itself. I'm baffled that RfA editors refuse to spit the hook - didn't they learn after the "SELF NOM IS PRIMA FACIEA EVIDENCE etc etc" stuff? About the ubx: I'd agree that people displaying that ubx are probably not suitable for admins, but Keepcases has begun notvoting on people who are members of a project that has the UBXs, even if those editors have not had the ubx. this atheist thinks some people need to think hard about the userboxes they display NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 07:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) These ridiculous voting sections should be removed; sanction discussions are not RFAs, nor should they take this RFA format. Why is this considered an exception? I'm sorry; Keepscases is not an exception - the sanction proposal discussion should be treated like any other user. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I do not share Keepcases' concern over the userboxes and I have stated as much in an RfA from several months ago. That being said, the only genuine drama that is generated does not come from Keepcases himself, but from a tiny number of individuals who have repeatedly sought to take his occasional and (admittedly) non-influential userbox-related comment and turn it into a Wagnerian opera. I have yet to see any evidence of how Keepcases has derailed an RfA based on his unique observations. Ultimately, this debate is going to have to question something that is becoming painfully obvious: is Keepcases being prosecuted because he has hopelessly disrupted the RfA process, or is he in the hot seat because a few people hate him and this is the only way they have to get back at him? Pastor Theo (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak Oppose. Amongst encyclopaedians views on religion should be as irrelevant as ethnic background or preference in team sports; providing they edit with a neutral point of view. I think Keepscases would be a much more effective participant at RFA if he were to shift his attention from POV userboxes to POV edits and broaden his opposes so that he didn't appear to be targeting atheists.  As a lapsed atheist myself and a former member of the National Secular Society, I'm aware that one of the differences between the US and the UK in particular is that a lot of our US editors come from societies where prejudice against atheists is one of the few socially acceptable prejudices, whilst many of our UK editors come from a post Christian society where atheism is pretty normal, at least amongst educated people. To make this project work we all need to find ways to work with people we wouldn't normally expect agree with. I would prefer that this sort of debate was held at MFD's over particular UBX's rather than here, and would suggest that Keepscases not be topic banned but instead consider this as an admonishment for an RFA !voting record where a disconcertingly high proportion of his opposes have been of atheists. BTW I wasn't impressed by this either.   Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  12:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose mostly per Pastor Theo. We've seen similar disputes regarding userboxes; people who support Israel, Palestine, and Christianity, and many others and at those time people made controversies on any possibility of candidate's bias on race, belief, religion, politics, etc. If you want to ban Keepcases, bring all people who had the similar disputes in the past on the table. --Caspian blue 13:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Show me any editor who is repeatedly arguing in RfAs that, say, a Jewish or Muslim editor cannot participate fully and equally in Wikipedia on the basis of their declared religious affiliation and I'll vote to ban them from RfAs, too. With pleasure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I need to. I've state my stance so have you.--Caspian blue 19:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose What ThaddeusB says above is the essence of the problem: We cannot go around telling people for what reasons they are allowed to !vote and for what not. I have argued against DougTech's topic ban the same way. The problem does not come from Keepscases' irrelevant !votes (and they are irrelevant because he has so far failed every single time to show any single piece of evidence that a candidate he opposed for such reasons has really edited in a non-neutral way). The problem is the reaction they cause and we would do good in reminding people to simple stop commenting on these !votes and let it rest. No candidate will fail RFA because of these !votes because I think no closing crat will consider any !vote (support or oppose!) valid that does not have any relevance to the contributions of the candidate in question. But as Thaddeus says, we should not start forbidding people to !vote for whatever reasons they deem relevant. We should instead inform those !voters that their reasons will be ignored if not relevant to the candidate and we should encourage people to simply let those !votes stand. Thank you for your vote is a good essay on this "problem" (although the problem is caused by wasting hours discussing such topic bans instead of simply ignoring those !votes and doing something that is more important). Regards  So Why  13:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree 100% that my votes are "irrelevant"; first, the addition of a userbox itself is a non-neutral edit, and secondly, I have always been clear that my concern is regarding users with disrespectful/confrontational attitudes being the face of Wikipedia, and not so much with their edits themselves. Keepscases (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that you do. Unfortunately for you, an overwhelming consensus in the community agrees with me on this. Edits on userpages are per definition non-neutral and as such, your argument would be against having userpages at all. As for the "face of Wikipedia", in my experience, no new user or outsider will go to a userpage before observing edits by said user and as such, their edits are what people will see first when encountering them. Personally, I have not observed a single occurrence where a new user agreed with someone's edits but has then afterwards felt threatened by something they read on said user's page. Usually they will judge someone by their edits and so do we at RFA. Hence your !vote, while your right to cast, has so far not been considered relevant to someone's ability to become an admin. Regards  So Why  19:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Caspian is right; this argument feels like a nationalistic dispute to me. And for some readers, that's just what it is; there's been a steady decline in the relative influence of organized religions in western civilizations for the last 500 years, but that decline is spotty, and nonexistent in much of Asia and Africa.  Equating religion with having imaginary friends is certain to be perceived by intelligent people in many countries as painting their entire country as childish or delusional ... not cool.  Keeps is picking up on this, and I'm happy to see he's willing to take a stand; the problem is that he doesn't seem to be as interested in any other battle, and the overall effects of this fight at RFA are, for now, negative.  As a first step, I'd like to see more discussion about the problem Keeps is pointing to.  On the other hand, I reject Keeps' position that a topic ban is out of the question ... it's too soon IMO, and when it comes, a first offense should be temporary rather than permanent, but it's on the table. - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - as per SoWhy and Caspian. Danks point regarding the wording of the userbox wording as it may be precieved as offensive to some people is, to me, the real problem. That being said, I don't agree with the methods or standards used by Keepscases at the RfA's and hope that he would reconsider his views. Shinerunner (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong oppose - So let's see, this is the 3rd person we don't particularly agree with the views for? I wanna say this: We're turning RFA into a personal blocking because of how they feel, not because of how others feel. This is the fourth person who's caused crap at RFA, and it takes less than a month to go after him? We're talking walled garden here, very tall walled garden. I think the sensible solution is to work this out at WT:RFA, not causing an issue at WP:ANI. Oppose topic ban and indefinite block completely. I feel this is just getting out of hand.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT>32(Want help? See here!) 14:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree that RFA is a walled garden. Everyone who wants adminship, and everyone who supports or opposes them, gets involved at RFA to some extent, some to a great extent.  That's one reason we have more conflict than some other areas; participation is very heterogeneous, including lots of people who don't agree with each other and sometimes don't like each other. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not completely what I mean. Look at this - this is the 4th time in 12-15 months we're crucifying someone for making strange votes on RFA. And what a shock, the first three are blocked :|. We don't need to tell another one through this - <FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT>32(Want help? See here!) 14:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Mainly per Icewedge because in my opinion, having a userbox that simply says "This user is an atheist" is fine and non-controversial and unoffensive, but saying "keep imaginary friends to yourself" is offensive and is a legitimate oppose rationale.--<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 14:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine. But he voted to oppose Tedder for simply displaying the fine and non-controversial and unoffensive "This user is a member of..." userbox, stating unequivocally that "No member of "WikiProject Atheism" should represent Wikipedia as an administrator." Tedder never displayed an even potentially disruptive userbox, by your own criteria. This was an attempt to blacklist by affiliation, contrary to WP:NPA. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per SoWhy. By now, Keepscases should be keenly aware that xe is in the minority.  It shouldn't be the community's responsibility to keep anybody from tilting at windmills if they are so inclined.  The !votes will be ignored, people will grumble under their breath, and eventually Keepcases will move on to other endeavors.  A topic ban at this point will do nothing but provide a solid platform from which Keepcases (or anybody) can yell loudly about the evils of Wikipedia. CosmicPenguin ( talk• WP:WYOHelp! ) 14:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Objections to how an editor votes can be disruptive. The votes themselves, which can be discounted by a bureaucrat and have never been shown to change the outcome of the discussion, rarely so. If an editor wants to object because of someone's user box, I think that's their privledge. Their vote doesn't have to be counted if it's not legitimate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose There must be a very, very high bar for banning an editor from spaces like RFA where significant discussions and decisions are made regarding the governance of this community. Even if the accusations made by his or her detractors are accurate - a concession I am not yet willing to make - this editor's actions do not rise to that level.  --ElKevbo (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I'm no fan of Keepscases (although I will admit that his/her questions can help inject some well-needed lightheartedness into the discussion) nor his/her views. However, I do agree with some of the above comments that a fair portion of the disruption comes simply from feeding the troll.  If Keepscases opposes or supports for a reason you feel is inane, just ignore it - it will go away.  The solution to all of this is that the result comes through consensus, and not a vote.  An oppose based on a removed userbox is not likely to be given the same weight as a support or oppose based on an analysis of recent contributions.  We should trust our bureaucrats and the working system we already have in place, not try to restrict opinions.  An oppose based on religious beliefs, however flawed, is no more "flimsy" than "Why not?"  Essentially, what ThaddeusB and SoWhy said. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory <font color="#555555"> (user • talk • contribs) 20:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. While he may have a bee in his bonnet about the issue, he has clearly explained why and though I may disagree with his arguments, I think it is not an obviously unreasonable stance. Quantpole (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Just because he has a minority viewpoint doesn't mean he should be prohibited from expressing it.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) While I disagree with his opinion, I will say that this is too soon. I fear that we've rushed into this much too rashly. What have we done so far? A few RfA threads, and then a topic ban proposal. There has not been any sort of dispute resolution, nor any sort of formalized discussion. Most of the WT:RFA threads have been just a lot of lynch mobs, which are trying to get Keepscases to stop via force. Those threads will not get him to change his opinion or his !vote. Conversely, they'll just make him more irritated, and that will lead to hard feelings all around. I think that there's still hope in Keepscases, as long as we go about it rationally and in an organized fashion. My opinion is that there should be an RFC over his behavior, which will 1) lay out the problem in a neat and organized fashion, 2) not have the pressure of any pending RfA hovering over it, 3) allow everyone to get their opinions out equally, and 4) be a lot friendlier way to go. It's amazing just how much a clean presence of mind will solve. ( X! ·  talk )  · @184  · 03:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion with the RfC. I'll file an RfC after this discussion ends. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  03:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have the best interests of the project at heart, Mythdon, you'll let someone else handle an RfC; you've been more than a little obsessive about this whole thing, and while you have every right to participate and share your opinion, I hardly think you're the person to orchestrate any kind of rational and calm discussion that X! suggests. Keepscases (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Viridae. This is a reenactment of every other "He can't soil my RFA!" bullshit that solves nothing, stokes nothing but drama and reveals nothing unseen except how little faith people have in the basic observational skills of our bureaucrats and how violently butthurt some people get over their RFAs. Please note this does absolutely does not count as an endorsement of Keepscases useless conduct. I should also note that as a completely uninvolved observer, Mythdon's unhelpfully antagonistic "I'll see you blocked and laugh at you for it, punk" sneering in this thread is tremendously dismaying to me. His baiting is doing his side of the discussion no service and has almost single-handedly changed my perspective on the whole matter. With that in mind, I refuse to support breaking this particular vexatious butterfly on a wheel.Bullzeye contribs 03:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the idea of "I'll see you blocked and laugh at you for it, punk" in my comments? I did not say I would laugh, nor did I call Keepscases a "punk". I do not know where you got that idea. I actually said things, including but not limited to "you won't be there, because if I see you there, and if you are topic banned, you'll be reported, period" and "let me tell you that if I were an administrator, and if I saw you engaging in this behavior, I would block you, no questions asked.". I don't know how you picked up "I'll see you blocked and laugh at you for it, punk" in my comments. I was not making any attempt to bait anyone. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  03:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you chose to single out my comment for further inquiry, I'll oblige you and be blunt; I initially weakly supported an RFA ban after reading the discussion, and then slowly segued to a strong oppose after seeing the eagerness and self-righteous vitriol in your comments, which suggest to me (an uninvolved and previously sympathetic observer) an unsettling degree of unprofessional "enthusiasm" in your interests here. This is the end of my comments on this topic. Bullzeye contribs 03:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose If  comments at  RfA are irrelevant, ignore them.   DGG (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose there should be a more formal attempt at dispute resolution before a topic ban. The RFA questions and opposes by Keepscases may be controversial but I think they should be permitted (at least those mentioned here; comments such as those that led to the user being blocked in 2007 were inappropriate).  However, there does appear to be a lack of civility in the replies to other users at Requests for adminship/Alan16, so maybe there could be a restriction on the user's discussion at RFA without preventing participation completely. snigbrook (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Note to Bleeding Blue, regarding your oppose above - I couldn't care less if Keepscases likes, dislikes, hates, agrees with, !votes per, or otherwise has proclaimed jihad against atheist admins. My proposal for the topic ban had absolutely nothing to do with this. It is for the years of ongoing drama in RfA. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  01:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A block of sorts would probably be better right now than a topic ban.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 01:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse my ignorance, but all the drama I'm aware of is the stuff related to that box, and a few irreverent questions. (Admittedly, if something more serious happened some time ago, I'm probably unaware and am willing to reconsider based on that.) I've also seen valid !votes and discussion on other RFAs, so I think a full ban is harsh, even if I don't particularly endorse some of his/her actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleeding Blue (talk • contribs) 01:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, if you don't have a full awareness of the situation, you might want to rethink jumping in with a strong oppose, especially with a strawman argument that it is about atheism. It is not. You might want to take a stroll through Keepscases contributions, and note the trends. Most of the drama you will find has nothing to do with atheism. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  01:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to stay down here for now, I'm finding it confusing to respond in two different sections. I'm aware of the Tedder !vote, that seemed to start this whole ball rolling. I didn't and don't think it's valid to oppose based on the actions/views of a WikiProject you associate yourself with. If you all think that !vote alone is worthy of a full topic ban, that's fine, but in my mostly useless opinion, that's a little on the harsh side. I do, however, think that opposing someone who actively displays the box is as valid as an oppose on edit count or namespace distribution. While it indeed says nothing about the editor's ability to contribute, that's very little of what adminship is about. It's more about conflict resolution and cooperation, which that box is severly harmful to. As for the claims of continuing drama, if there are other issues, again, please point them out, and I'll consider them. I can only respond to the issues you raise directly in support of this ban. <font color=#000099>Bleeding  <font color=#0066FF>Blue  01:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at User talk:Keepscases, you'll see a lot of drama kicked up about Keepscases' actions on RfA. Note that not all of their edits have brought negative attention; among many generic "thanks for voting" responses there are a few mentions of appreciation (and I have to admit that I agree that this was hilarious) but far more people who were upset by Keepscases' strange opposition votes and questions for RfA candidates. They included an oppose for a person who had a picture with a cigarette on their userpage, a question about notification if the candidate died after being an administrator, whether or not they edit under the influence of hallucinogens, etc. This userbox crusade is the latest in a very long history of strange behavior at RfAs. --  At am a chat 02:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. Yes, I've had a look at that. It seems to me that this user has a habit of posing unusual questions at RFAs, that seems to account for most of the queries. S/he's certainly been warned about it plenty and if it's becoming overly disruptive to the process, something certainly needs to be done. My oppose was mostly based on my perception that this stemmed from the userbox issue, as most (if not all) of the recent discussion has arisen from and been about that, and I think that usage of divisive messages on your user page is a valid concern in an RFA. The pattern of behavior re:RFAs has been consistent and odd, but it seems like we're trying to elevate it to the level of "Power Hunger" and "Too many admins", if you catch my drift. The questions s/he asks are optional and it seems, according to one particular post on her talk, that there is consensus to remove "stupid" questions. That seems like a fairer solution to the problem to me. <font color=#000099>Bleeding  <font color=#0066FF>Blue  02:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If we say that stupid questions are to be removed, do we need a full-out discussion each RfA of which ones to remove? Who decides this? Why should resources be taken up to determine this? This has already been proposed many times and shot down each time because doing it on an ad hoc basis would be too difficult to determine. It is akin to addressing the symptom of a disease. Here, we address the root of the problem - he simply cannot participate anymore. Questions are not the only disruption; it is also in his supports, opposes, and subsequent megabyte-long discussions that ensue. If you don't want to take the time to investigate the issue, I respect that. However, you should rethink your "strong oppose" vote with a strawman argument (sorry to repeat that, there's no other way to put it) and instead either don't vote, or state something to the effect that you are opposing without taking the time to investigate the situation. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  03:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (Outdent)I believe that both of your accusations against me and/or my vote are unfair. My 'strawman' argument was in response to how every prior discussion about the athiesm thing has gone prior to this thread, and was made prior to the focus changing to his/her unusual questions at RFAs. Each prior discussion at indifidual RFAs has boiled down to slinging the 'anti-athiest' tag around, and Keepscases' futile attempts at making it understood by everyone that he has a problem with that box, and not the beliefs it represents. It's unfortunate that he opposed one user for simply belonging to the wikiproject. In my opinion, it would have been valid to ask the user what his opinion of the box was, as a member of the project, and whether he thinks it's appropriate to display there. But, judging by the standards that have been set in this discussion, that would have been dismissed as another disruptive silly question and no doubt included in that exhaustive list of diffs provided earlier.
 * As for the idea that I didn't look into this issue, the only reason I'm here is because I silently witnessed all of the prior discussions unfold at WP:RFA and felt s/he was being unfairly attacked for bringing up a valid concern. I was of the (apparently misguided) impression that you all were more concerned by that than some silly hypothetical questions at RFAs, and so didn't directly address them. If my vote is improper, it will be properly discouted when the time comes. <font color=#000099>Bleeding  <font color=#0066FF>Blue  03:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't as if a 'crat is going to close this with some defined outcome. This is a community-sactioned ban proposal. I made no purposeful accusation of you. You state above, "Admittedly, if something more serious happened some time ago, I'm probably unaware and am willing to reconsider based on that." I have no other interpretation of this other than "I haven't investigated the situation in full". If you meant something different, I apologize. I made a proposal based on over a year of past disruption. I am familiar with that disruption, and intended the participants to also familiarize themselves with the evidence at hand in the user's contributions, as I stated in the #1 support of the ban. Your strong opposal was based on this statement: "The idea that an oppose based on a user endorsing such divisive and insulting content is worthy of a ban is silly". The ban was not at all proposed because of this. Thus, by definition, your argument became a strawman argument. I don't mean this as an insult, it's just the way it is. All in all, I don't mean to belittle you or strongarm you into changing your mind. What I do want you to do is ensure that your participation here is based on sound reasoning - for your own integrity. If you prefer to leave things as-is, I will comment no further on this. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  03:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed my vote above, but I'd like to make a few things clear, mostly to indeed preserve my integrity.
 * I was under the impresson that Keepscases alleged "Incivilty and Soapboxing" (ie the title of this discussion) was the primary issue here. As I stated earlier, I was aware of these RFA questions because a simple glance at the user's talk page makes it impossible to miss the issue. But, at least to me and judging by the nature of most of the comments I found there, it was a minor concern compared to the userbox voting. Hence my "more serious" qualifier in my original statement.
 * As far as integrity goes, I'm here partially because it bothers me that a hopeful admin posting divisive, attacking, hurtful, etc messages on their user page is so readily dismissed by the community as unimportant. The very nature of adminship is dealing with other users, often in heated situations. If we're all failing to see a problem with posting hateful language on a page that's supposed to represent a user charged with conflict resolution, I'm not sure what else I can say. I'd actually like to preserve my own integrity by standing by my position that these kinds of things are perfectly appropriate to discuss at an RFA. I refuse to believe that this isn't the relevant issue, because it's blatently obvious that this was the issue that caused this action, that inspired it's title, and that had been discussed several times in the past couple of weeks. If this was purely a "silly questions" problem, the timing is curious at least.
 * As far as the MfD dismissal I keep hearing repeated...okay, so the template gets deleted. That doesn't change the fact that users that used to have that box on their page were ready and willing to post such a message. It doesn't stop them from reposting it in a different form. I don't suppose we're going to XfD every user page that posts such messages? If I post a racist, sexist, anti-religious or otherwise bigoted message on my user page, I fully expect it to be brought up if I should run for adminship someday.
 * Finally, I'm mostly retracting my original !vote because I respect some of the editors that have arrived here, and if they are of the opinion that Keepscases behavior is truly detrimental to the RFA process, I'll respect it as a less experienced editor and trust their judgment in that area. I hope you'll in turn respect the opinions I've laid out here. <font color=#000099>Bleeding  <font color=#0066FF>Blue  04:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It saddens me that you changed your vote. Unlike most here, you did and still do seem to grasp what this is about.  Keepscases (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

To Thad and Viridae, I understand your point, and see it as analogous to a community's response to trolling. Permit me the parallel here, even though I do not feel Keeps is trolling. When a board is trolled, the actual disruption comes not from the troll but from the response of unwary individuals. Someone (to pick an old example) asking faux-naive questions on a usenet board only succeeds in trolling if respondents are ensnared. A simple community policy in the face of that kind of trolling is don't feed the trolls. And while there are tremendous returns to such a policy (for one, it is ahierarchical), it clearly doesn't work in all cases. RfA represents a venue ill suited to DFTT. Kurts question and oppose invariably brought responses from regulars, candidates and new users just discovering RfA. No amount of time passing or admonishment offered from regulars diminished the yield on Kurt's questions. Even worse, discussion would be locked down (or shuffled off to the poorly attended RfA subpage talk space), leaving only the oppose. From the standpoint of an outside observer, it would appear that community norms allowed the irritant but not the response (obviously this is a lopsided and rushed comment on the business of RfA baiting/trolling). Wikipedia has developed the practical necessity for some community control. DFTT is insufficent. If we don't establish some norms and enforce them, we will fight and refight this battle until everyone is sick from hearing it. How long before we can make a determination that Keeps's participation in RfA is distracting enough that we respond (rather than shuffling it off to the closing crat and adding the insulting and inaccurate "of course this vote won't be counted" response) as a community? A year? 2 years? Rather than recapitulate this debate each and every time we have a new RfA, just have the debate now and be done with it. Protonk (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's amazing that the consensus here seems to be that "ban Keepscases from RfA" is a more appropriate solution than "figure out why many users seem to think intentionally offensive and confrontational userboxes are okay." Keepscases (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not amazing at all. The userboxes aren't an issue.  The original impetus for your opposes isn't what drives this discussion.  This isn't about whether or not userbox XYZ is ok or not ok. Protonk (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If people let me oppose and left me the hell alone, none of this would have ever happened. If you agree, then why am I the problem?  If you disagree, tell me what I am doing wrong.  Stop being vague. Keepscases (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, my first response to that is that you are obviously postulating a counterfactual. The problem with DFTT (again, excuse the parallel, I don't think you are trolling) is that people do rise to the bait.  But, let me also be very clear.  Just because one link in a chain breaking may stop the end result, doesn't mean that all links are equally important.  I have a hard time casting a wide net and saying "everyone who responds to Keeps is wrong" when the only constant in all the responses to you is you.  Also, don't confuse my statement that 'the userboxes aren't an issue' with some sort of agreement about your opposes.  I'm just attempting to cut short a discussion about the relative merits of userboxes because it isn't germane.  Just as a relative discussion of userbox merits is only glancingly related to a particular RfA. Protonk (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not really looking to paint anyone as "right" or "wrong". I have my opinions, others may have theirs, but I for one believe I know which side has brought the dishonesty and obfuscation to this debate.  As much as I have been attacked for being prejudiced against atheists, one would think at some point a link demonstrating that would be provided. Keepscases (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tan's block/ban happy approach creates a chilling effect. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * NotAnIP - comments like that provide absolutely nothing productive to the community effort. Tan has always done his best to improve the quality of our project, and regardless of the results - suggesting that there is an ulterior motive is simply ludicrous.  I suggest that you rethink your approach. — Ched : <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ?  13:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Invalid, prejudiced reasons for opposing, that have nothing to do with adminship, should be chilled. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any prejudice. If someone wants to display a userbox that announces he's a jerk, I'm not prejudiced when I believe him. Keepscases (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your own words say otherwise. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely you can provide an example, then. Keepscases (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I stated it earlier, and here it is again. Your statement, "No member of "WikiProject Atheism" should represent Wikipedia as an administrator" is an invalid reason for opposing adminship. It expresses prejudice (prejudgment) that has nothing to do with adminship. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That comment is based on the attitudes that that group publicly displays. You need to get over this way of thinking that it's "prejudiced" to judge a person or a group based on positions that they publicly and intentionally represent.  Are users who flaunt KKK membership suitable for adminship? Keepscases (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As do many Christian groups. So what? As to the KKK - why not? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone who says he loves the KKK or is otherwise some kind of political extremist will probably not last long enough to even be considered for adminship. comes to mind. They will most likely engage in extremely tendentious editing, and even if they don't get indef'd for it, that will sink their chances for adminship, because then you've got a valid reason to oppose. Likewise with membership in any other organization, never mind some wikiproject. If you had evidence that Tedder was editing tendentiously, you might have something. Pre-judging as being unfit, just because of membership in a project, but without supporting evidence of actual bad behavior, renders you unqualified to cast a vote in the matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT - Baseball Bugs - You should read through some RfAs sometime. Many people support / oppose for arbitrary nonsense. The only difference with keepscases is that everyone knows they're nonsense reasons and piles. A few admins directing irrelevant discussion to the talkpages would be useful, as would telling people to ignore pointless notvotes. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're saying there are others who have no business voting in RfA's, I certainly agree. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Chad Davis - Tan often suggests blocking people who he finds difficult to work with. What policy is being broken here?  We see here Baseball bugs suggesting that these opposes are "not valid" and should be blockable.  There is no policy stating what reasons are not valid for RfA.  Indeed, the policy specifically says that bizarre opposes happen and are ignored by the crats and can be ignored by everyone else.  Frankly, opposing someone because they are a member of the atheism wikiproject (which has a "hateful" userbox; even though the candidate has never used that userbox) is no less stupid than many contribs to the thoroughly fucked RfA process.  BUT I WOULD NEVER SAY THAT BECAUSE IT ASSUMES BAD FAITH.  NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I concede that that particular vote may have been a mistake on my part. Tedder seemed to be genuinely unaware of that userbox, disapproving of its contents, not closely connected with the project anyway, and understanding of my vote.  I have wished him well.  Keepscases (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the candidates calm response to you may have swayed more people to support the persuaded people to oppose. Admins will often come into contact with people who have strong viewpoints.  Being able to understand those views (which many people in this thread haven't demonstrated) and being able to work out a "solution" is a good thing.  I do hope you see that asking candidates of their opinions about the UBX is probably better than opposing right away NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not read every comment involved in this thread and have not followed the dispute in every intimate detail, but it seems to me that those objecting to certain votes are causing more of a disruption than the votes themselves. There are already bureaucrats whose job is to sort through the discussion and to weed out votes that aren't reasonable. I am very wary of restricting good faith contributions to RfA discussions. I suspect that once a pattern emerges in a particular voters comments, they will be viewed accordingly and appropriately to that context. I'm really not sure why it's such a big deal why a particular editor votes the way they do, and as others have pointed out, lots of RfA votes are based on dubious arguments or either straight support or opposes. So if someone wants to vote based on a reason that others see as frivolous, let the policies and those elected to assess votes deal with it. Sorry if I'm not grasping the big picture or some critical detail. I would just like to see votes and discussion at RfA go forward without those objecting to a particular vote or pattern of votes being able to cause a disruption and then say, "see all the disruption this editor is causing when we keep objecting to what they're doing?" in order to restrain and limit those they disagree with. If there is a true consensus among editors that a certain type of vote is inappropriate, then I'm okay with that too, but deciding which chads to count can get pretty tricky and we already have people elected by the community serving in that role. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would someone please care to identify exactly what policy Keepcases has violated?     bsmithme    04:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are quirky questions and comments a bad thing, at RfA? I'm not sure that they are. Depending on how you look at it, they might provide a bit of levity, or they might give us a glimpse at how candidates respond to tense feelings, unusual characters, or even outright trolling -- all of which can be very useful, seeing as administrators are likely to run into all of the above. Some of these comments I would not consider disruptive at all -- or, at least, not disruptive to an actionable level -- for example expressing concern over candidates who are legal minors (not a position I agree with, but certainly one people should be free to express), or concern over userpage material that the commenting user considers to be hateful (specifically the "imaginary friends" bit), or pointing out that users have adjusted otherwise regular behavior just prior to RfA. This isn't the sort of comment I look kindly on, but I'm not sure if it rises to the sort of thing I'd ban someone over. This, on the other hand, is quite a problem -- we shouldn't be opposing candidates based on their religious beliefs. – <font color="#28f">Luna Santin (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's beyond obvious now that this proposal is not going to receive a community consensus, particularly in this format of discussion - can someone please close this accordingly? Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block and evidence
I have proposed an indefinite block here. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  02:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I am proposing an indefinite block on Keepscases. It seems to me that a topic ban from RfA will not legitimately solve this. I know I supported a topic ban of DougsTech from RfA, but I think now that this kind of disruption is warranted for an indefinite block, as I don't think topic bans are harsh enough for these kind of users. I think that a topic ban will not make the user learn lessons as much as an indefinite block from Wikipedia. An indefinite block will more likely achieve a lesson learned, than a mere topic ban.
 * Proposed indefinite block and evidence

Here is a list of diffs that convince me that this user shall not be editing Wikipedia, much less RfA: And I don't even need to provide my reasons for each diff, except in short that this user makes up nonsense reasons for supporting and opposing candidates and asking nonsense questions that don't help the RfA in any way.
 * 20:58, 9 March 2009
 * 22:22, 10 March 2009
 * 21:24, 12 March 2009
 * 19:30, 16 March 2009
 * 19:23, 17 March 2009
 * 22:21, 1 April 2009
 * 16:45, 8 April 2009
 * 18:59, 10 April 2009
 * 17:25, 15 April 2009
 * 22:02, 5 May 2009
 * 15:37, 13 May 2009
 * 18:09, 28 May 2009
 * 18:54, 28 May 2009
 * 16:12, 31 May 2009
 * 16:14, 31 May 2009
 * 22:56, 11 June 2009
 * 18:11, 18 June 2009
 * 14:44, 19 June 2009
 * 03:08, 21 June 2009
 * 14:49, 23 June 2009
 * 21:41, 24 June 2009
 * 17:10, 14 July 2009
 * 15:25, 15 July 2009
 * 22:50, 25 July 2009
 * 01:39, 6 August 2009
 * 18:22, 6 August 2009
 * 23:49, 7 August 2009

This user needs to be blocked. If I was an administrator, I would block the user myself. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  02:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keepscases would probably Oppose your RfA because your deleted userpage shows that you're trying to hide something. --  At am a chat 02:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Strong Support.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 02:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I think the topic ban is better. I see one of three results as likely from such a ban. The first possibility is that Keepscases moves elsewhere on Wikipedia and is productive. The second is that being unable to disrupt RfA any longer, Keepscases leaves Wikipedia. The last is that Keepscases acts disruptive somewhere else, in which case they are blocked from the entire site. So we either have a positive result, a neutral result, and a result that ends up eventually doing what you're proposing anyway. --  At am a chat 02:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The topic ban is debatable. I don't think anything this user has done warrants action of this magnitude. <font color=#000099>Bleeding  <font color=#0066FF>Blue  02:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Ridiculous, and counter-productive to do this while another proposal was fresh. I have no issue with Keepscases's participation in any arena outside of RfA. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  02:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Tan39. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Topic ban should suffice and its outcome should be made before attempting another proposal. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  03:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If keepscases remains unproductive after his topic ban an indef block could be applied  Triplestop  x3  02:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Some other editor should "officially" SNOW close this. No one is gonna indef block Keepscases right now, and we should all concentrate on the above topic ban proposal. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  03:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Facebook event to recruit Arab and Muslim editors to contribute to the Gaza War article.

 * You need a Facebook account to view the event page that is under discussion

In January 2009 (incorrectly typo'd at Facebook as '10), unknown Wikipedia editors organized a Facebook "event" with the stated goal of recruiting "Arab and Muslim contributions to the Wikipedia page on [sic] Israel-Gaza Conflict". The event has three administrators, but only one of the names match any WP user names: User:Mustafaahmedhussien. 118 people signed up and there were 48 maybes.

These recruiting efforts made strong headway into the article as major NPOV-violations have been included in the article in the name of a consensus. For example, the second line of the article proclaims that the conflict is known as the "Gaza Massacre" in the Arab media. The use of this term has not received coverage, let alone any mention, in mainstream sources, yet this name is given prominence in the second line of the article. Similarly, a number of repugnant tasteless pics were placed in the article, including one of a dead, burnt Arab baby, in the name of a concensus. There are other NPOV issues with the article, but this is not the forum the resultant content problem; these are merely two examples of the problem created by this "event". A year and half ago, a major witch-hunt went underway that culminated at Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying in which a bunch of editors were banned for being part of a group intending to correct anti-Israel POV's. Due to this, non-anti-Israel editors of the Gaza War article are frequently harangued and accused of working for the Israeli government, CAMERA, or another organized entity.

While the CAMERA situation was problematic, this is of far greater concern. The CAMERA situation involved a few editors, but this event involved way over a 100 people, and that's counting only those that signed up officially.

One WP user who is an example of a probably Facebook recruit is User:Thrylos000. S/he first appeared on Jan. 4 and edited until Jan 11. Almost every single edit concerned the Gaza War, including arguing vociferously for the inclusion of "Gaza Massacre" .User: Cryptonio is another. He appeared on January 7 and has mainly edit warred at the Gaza War article. Another example is User:Falastine fee Qalby ("Palestine in my heart"), who with clear POV on his sleeve, started editing on January 11 and whose first edit was to the Gaza War article.

What I'm hoping would result from this post is that we find out which Wikipedians are behind these recruitment efforts and ban them, just like we banned the editors involved in Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. Secondly, we need to figure out how to deal with these off wiki POV recruitment efforts in the future. Sincerely, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama articles have similar gang members, both the "Obama is a Muslim" gang and "Obama is perfect" gang. If Wikipedia had an Editorial Board for Exceptional Cases, this board could decide on content for only the most contentious articles. Then recruitment would not matter. On the other hand, if you oppose an editorial board for exceptional cases, then don't have it. Acme Plumbing (talk) 05:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, let's at least be aware that this group hasn't had any FB activity since the beginning of January 09.
 * With that said: With these canvassing approaches, it's fairly easy to discern who's a meatpuppet of the larger organization. They shall be treated as such. But: innocent until proven guilty (or walks and looks guilty, like a duck). One witch-hunt is no better than another witch-hunt, particularly a stale one. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

For anyone reviewing this ANI, it's important to remember the CAMERA affair, which involved far-reaching sanctions to any user even remotely involved, and there was considerable damage done even to users who were not involved in any way. Obviously I am just as angry at those who orchestrated the CAMERA affair against everything Wikipedia stands for, especially User:Zeq, but the fact remains that the affair significantly harmed every editor suspected of being pro-Israeli (regardless of whether they were involved), and is still mentioned a lot today (like this attack page up for deletion now). Unsurprisingly, it also made its way into a series of accusations into the recent West Bank/Judea and Samaria arbitration case.

Now, I'm not saying that the same should be applied to pro-Palestinian editors just for the hell of it; especially I do not wish anyone's name to be needlessly dragged through the mud, and there are quite a few positive pro-Palestinian editors on Wikipedia. In terms of direct sanctions however, it is only fair that they are applied to every editor clearly involved in this Facebook event. Brewcrewer listed a few who were certainly involved, and should certainly be sanctioned, even if this happenned 8 months ago (whoever doesn't edit anymore should probably be indef'ed). However, as he said himself, there are likely a lot more editors involved, and if a few serious admins take some time to find more users, this isn't really a "witch hunt", but a preventative measure for more such acts. I'm not sure some people realize the weight of the situation in principle—if nothing at all is done here, we will be seeing all sorts of Facebook groups pop up regarding influencing POV on Wikipedia, including the aforementioned "Obama gangs". Personally I can think of one user who was quite certainly involved in this affair and still edits actively today. I'm sure there are more. I will e-mail the name to any administrator who wishes to have a better look at this.

Finally, the claim that this is stale does not really hold up. So most of the clearly-involved editors haven't edited since; however, the article in question, Gaza War, still suffers from the serious problems inflicted during this affair, and any attempt to NPOV it will likely meet with a "no consensus" today, even though consensus to add some of the POV parts would not have been established in the first place was it not for this affair. I therefore strongly encourage administrators to have a deeper look into this. —Ynhockey (Talk) 08:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can correlate data and such. Could you drop me that e-mail? I was more hoping it wasn't stale, personally :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is a complete garbage. Editors on both sides have to clean up crap and then get sucked into debates over international law concerns. It is not a project on how to present NPOV information regarding a military conflict but an outlet to mention reports reports from human rights observers. This article has had plenty of time to stabilize and has not. Editors should be ashamed. This includes people I enjoy (Nab is great, Ashdod is resourceful, Sean is funny, and several other decent dudes) and myself. Screw outside recruiting. We should be better than that and we certainly could have gone the distance on this article. GA is a myth right now. When it all comes down to it the editors who have devoted time to it have little sympathy for shenanigans so random editors are not the concern. There are a few editors that are so biased they should not be permitted to edit anything related. They have left. Look at the archives. I don't hear a thing from many of them. Wikifan said it and he was right. The article will change. I am not going to waste time going through the archives or my recollection of hurt feelings to look for one article only editors or any other jerkoffs. They have moved on and we still have a terrible article. We can fix it without worrying about them unless you have a specific editor to call out for campaigning. Chances are they got caught up in the sweep of overtly rude and biased editors a couple months ago.Cptnono (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps those who are alleging a mass conspiracy here can point to specific correlating edits and editors, which of course would be supported by actual evidence? Rounding up a handful of editors that Brewcrew doesn't like and noting that they edited an article in January isn't terribly convincing. Remember that what sunk CAMERA was the access to their e-mail archives, which pointed to exactingly specific "edit this article on this date", "make friends with this editor (i.e. me) and sway them to your side", etc... So unless someone can gain access to the facebook group and see if there were specific coordinations and instructions, this is much ado about nothing. Tarc (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * While I sympathise with and support the objectives set out in brewcrewer's final 'What I'm hoping' section I think we need a bit of a reality check here.
 * The Gaza War article is already subject to discretionary sanctions so any suggestion that a Facebook group has an influence over the content amounts to a statement that discretionary sanctions are not working. If that is the case (and evidence would need to be provided to support that) then that needs to be addressed in addition to investigations into off-wiki recruiting.
 * For this Facebook group scenario to be a genuine problem that affects content there needs to be evidence to support the notion that standard mandatory policies such as WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR are not being implemented in the article. Many content issues have been discussed at enormous length and repeatedy. All discussions are documented and available via the index and search options. If there is evidence to support the assertion that previous or current content resulted from the influence of people that signed up for the Facebook event then it will be in there somewhere. While it's true that there have been strong POVs at play at times in discussions, plenty of wikilawyering and a great deal of drive-by POV vandalism by both pro/anti Israeli/Palestinian editors, my experience is that by and large, there has been quite a lot of effort to reach consensus that meet mandatory content policy requirements. Consequently statements like 'These recruiting efforts made strong headway into the article' and 'examples of the problem created by this "event"' are inconsistent with reality in my view (in addition to not being supported by evidence at the moment). Both sides in content disputes (such as the Gaza Massacre issue etc) have generally used evidence/RS/wiki-policy based arguments with disagreements often amounting to disagreements over how to measure/achieve WP:V compliance. Yes, there's been a lot of nonsense in the past but things seem to have calmed down a great deal.


 * If there is an organised group of editors trying to make the article pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli then I think a quick look at the citation density in the article and the kinds of references used (which includes a large number of Israeli sources) suggests that they've been pretty ineffective. Yes, as cptnono it could be improved e.g. spin off intlaw stuff, focus on what happened or whatever but the idea that an organised group has successfully shaped the article seems pretty implausible. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if memory serves, on the CAMERA case the effect those editors had on WP was virtually nil, yet all the involved editors were perma-banned. Other than the fact that this case involves possibly vastly more individuals, is there some other compelling difference between the two? IronDuke  20:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't said there is a difference between the two. I support brewcrewer's request for investigation/action. However, editors with a battleground mentality are problematic whether or not they're part of an off-wiki assembled group. Ultimately what matters most is ensuring that core policies on content and talk are implemented. If there is evidence that the discretionary sanctions are not working then that is significant. For interest, at least one of the editors in the CAMERA group came back as a new user and got banned again. They were extensively involved in the Gaza War article amongst others over an extended period. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ..and by the way, that user Tundrabuggy is the user brewcrewer has used in his second diff to illustrate that 'non-anti-Israel editors of the Gaza War article are frequently harangued and accused of working for the Israeli government, CAMERA, or another organized entity'. It seems like an odd example to choose. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

off wiki canvassing?
So, what do people do when we see off wiki campaigning?

See, for example, this Ussenet google search where people are canvassing for edits to problematic Satanic Abuse articles. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Protect -> investigate -> sanction violators -> unprotect. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  11:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good method. Sanctions have often been dealt out in these cases. Two arbcom cases were CAMERA and WP:ARBMAC2.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 11:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with the above. It would take a checkuser painstakingly looking at, for example, Gaza War, and seeing who edited it and what CU reveals about them, scrutinizing January in particular. IronDuke  17:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What's all the fuss about here? More Palestinian editors who are under represented anyway would not be so bad provided, of course, they stick to the usual wiki rules. Now, you could argue that since you have two sides and you can't really decide who is right or wrong based on the sources, the balance of the article may change. But why would that be so bad if the matter isn't settled anyway?

These sorts of disputes and the pre-occupation of editors with them distract from more important problems on wikipedia, like the one raised by me here. Just imagine that a student would have read the flawed version of the article and have learned a mistaken thing that leads him to make errors. That's a far more serious problem. One has to think about how to make sure editors don't edit nonsense into articles but the usual wiki rules are too much focussed about dealing with politics articles where you have two equal sides.

I don't think you could just ban editors from editing the gaza war article just because he/she was recruited on facebook. But if such arbitrary rules are somehow enforced, then one has to explain why no action can be taken against proven kooks who edit nonsense in science articles. :( Count Iblis (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is bad taste that a Facebook group exists for the sole purpose of editing Wikipedia with a given POV, and that this should be exposed. Thank you for bringing it to the community's attention.

However this falls firmly in the "Storm in a Teacup Department". CAMERA's disruption, which I have addressed in for example the diffs provided by brewcrewer, was not just the case of some unruly pov meatpuppetry: it was a financed project of an NGO with an agenda, who was paying staff, including its highest level staff, to organize, direct, and provide logistical support to an organized corporate effort to influence Wikipedia. In this sense, CAMERA's situation is not about meatpupettry, but about spamming, about a corporation advancing its business interests in Wikipedia via disruptive means. This is an encyclopedia written by amateurs as a hobby, and any and all efforts to make it professional should be swiftly countered, be it MyWikiBiz guy or be it a political NGO.

For example, pro-any-issue groups, boards, and mailing list as a general rule discuss wikipedia, and even collaborative editing. This is frowned upon, but inevitable, and only in egregious moments, when it acquires a disruptive quality, should it matter. As a matter of routine Brewcrewer, Wikifan12345, and Tundrabuggy exchanged on-wiki (and one would guess, off-wiki) collaborative talk around given articles and new articles in their sandboxes: there is nothing wrong with this. There is nothing wrong, either, with someone setting up a blog or mailing lists with interesting sources, ideas, etc for Wikipedia, as long as it amateur. There is actually nothing actually "wrong", but it would be it very bad taste and a noob error, to setup up a facebook group. What is wrong is when you involve money and mobilizing clout to disrupt Wikipedia's consensus content building process. CAMERA did that and judging by their track record of decades as an extremist organization, continues to do this, with better operational security.

Borderline uncivil language on "witchhunts" certainly continues the pattern of disruption of a group of editors that will continue to waste our times advancing their political agendas, instead of advancing the collaborative spirit that has built Wikipedia. The community has generated two powerful tools for this WP:IPCOLL, to allow for multi-partisan meta-collaboration on the topic area, and WP:ARBPIA, for the swift resolution of allegations of egregious disruption. Used together, both community tools should suffice to both generate well-sourced, neutrally presented, relevant content for our readers, and to take care of any instances of disruption.

However, it is the same editors now raising this thread who refuse to participate in wither of those two efforts, or do so under protests. If they did, they would be able to engage instances of meatpuppetry on the part of all editors in the same manner they are always handled, by the community. In this sense, protestations of "witchhunting" are a case of of the pot calling the kettle black: what are the possibly unfounded, un-evidenced accusations against a number of editors mentioned in this thread if not an attempt at a retaliatory witchhunt? Why not discuss this first in good faith in the WP:IPCOLL and WP:ARBPIA? Why continue to waste the community's time and energy if no specific examples of content disruption are provided? This is just one more attempt to "settle scores", and should be ignored as such. --Cerejota (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Slavery in ancient Greece
An IP has done several removals in a row on the article, and it would be tedious for me to undo them all. Would some admin do it, please, and see about the editing pattern of Special:Contributions/72.83.124.187? --Milkbreath (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * His only changes are to remove the word "pseudo" in front of either Plato or Aristotle on four occasions. Is this not correct?  I would not have thought that would be too tiresome to remove, and rollback is inappropriate as the edits appear to be good faith. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You assume that I want to be bothered, and that I'm good at any of this, and that I know that your "rollback" is any more trouble than typing what you've typed here. For future reference, assuming I know anything is starting off on the wrong foot. Yes, the "pseudos" belong, just as the "OMG, it's so awesome" he put in another article (which I can't seem to undo, strangely) does not. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon? Perhaps you can't undo the 'awesome' edit because someone else  removed it two weeks ago?  Rollback is for removing vandalism - this did not look like vandalism.  Have you considered adding WP:TWINKLE to your gadgets.  This will allow you to revert multiple edits while using an edit summary. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the IP edits using Twinkle, and left a welcome note on the editor's talk page. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism?
It says here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism "If you find that an editor persists in plagiarising others' work after being notified of this guideline, report him, or her, at the administrators' noticeboard so that an administrator can respond to the issue."

There are some texts at the Asmahan article that are almost exact copys from the sources and very little changed from them. Here is the source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JI20Ak04.html

Texts from the source: "She escaped by night on horseback" "She disguised herself as a male horseman and rode all the way to the Syrian-Palestinian border." "she returned to Damascus where she paraded through the streets with her husband Hasan" "The Free French reneged on their promise of independence and a disgruntled Asmahan shifted her allegiance to the Nazis in revenge. She boarded a train and headed to Ankara, where she wanted to meet Franz von Papen, Hitler's ambassador to Turkey and master of Nazi espionage in the Middle East. British officials at the border refused to let her pass, and she was deported to Beirut"

I tried to change a couple words, and rewrite some sections to try to avoid plagiarism, but they have been reverted several times by user Arab Cowboy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=306840098&oldid=306838133

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=306843722&oldid=306841694

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=307028837&oldid=307025361

He also added the exact same comment from the author in the middle of a quote, exactly as in the book: "(although she was in reality a third cousin, twice removed)" Page 37 http://books.google.com/books?id=Eca2pXOX-F8C&pg=PA37&dq=%22why+I+am+the+daughter+of%22#v=onepage&q=%22why%20I%20am%20the%20daughter%20of%22&f=false

I notified him twice, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AArab_Cowboy&diff=307015009&oldid=306114934 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=306841694&oldid=306840348

Dont know what more to do from here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why hasn't anyone answered to this?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe the copyright violations board is more appropriate, see Copyright_problems. Cheers 70.49.2.18 (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Er, perhaps because we're volunteers and this looks like stepping into a mine field? Sarah 15:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User Supreme Deliciousness is again abusing the system! He's crying plagiarism and is selectively removing or modifying text only to promote his own agenda. This, too, will not fly, SD! --Arab Cowboy (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about that but it would be much better to address the concerns raised than personalising it. Please try to Assume Good Faith. Wikipedia takes plagiarism and copyright infringement very seriously and if the Wikipedia article is plagiarising a source text or using someone else's ideas or words without appropriate attribution, it needs to be fixed very quickly. No one should be restoring text flagged as problematic without addressing the concerns raised. The article Supreme Deliciousness claims is being plagiarised is copyright and isn't licensed under a free license but even if it was under a free license, we still shouldn't be copying unique phrases or sentences or generally using someone else's ideas without appropriate attribution. Sarah 15:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Wildhartlivie's ownership of article John Dillinger
Originally filed for mediation, but User Wildhartlivie has made it clear he is not interested in resolving this via mediation. Apologies if this is in the wrong place.

Article John Dillinger

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:Wildhartlivie
 * User:Little Professor

What is the dispute?
Wildhartlivie claiming ownership of article John Dillinger, as evidenced by frequent reversions to his own version of the article (6 reverts to his own version in the last 6 days alone:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Dillinger&diff=306923038&oldid=306915019

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Dillinger&diff=306346351&oldid=306345023

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Dillinger&diff=306332470&oldid=306327208

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Dillinger&diff=306270579&oldid=306265823

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Dillinger&diff=306222634&oldid=306200431

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Dillinger&diff=305995100&oldid=305992902

and inappropriate use of comments within the article to discourage editors from interfering with his proposed version of the page[], without any consensus being established or even discussed on the article's talk page. Using unhelpful incivil language to new editors when his hidden comment instructions are not complied with -.

Also incivility towards other editors when he has been cautioned on the above matters

What would you like to change about this?
Offer education to user Wildhartlivie regarding WP:OWN, inappropriate use of hidden comments within the article to maintain his proposed version of the article rather than discussion on the talk page, and reminder of WP:CIVIL
 * It's not clear from the diffs provided that this is an ownership issue. Wildhartlivie is maintaining the article by asking that sources be used to justify content changes. This is not unreasonable. If you want to make the changes to the article, provide reliable sources--particularly if they counter what has been printed in existing sources. When you do and your edits continue to be reverted and you are given spurious excuses, then it might be time to look at ownership issues. --Moni3 (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. Would be grateful for your views on the use of inline hidden comments viz "THERE IS NO PLACE FOR IT. THE ONLY THINGS BEING INCLUDED IN THIS ARTICLE ARE DIRECT DEPICTIONS OF DILLINGER IN FILMS OR TV. HE WROTE NO SONGS, SONG REFERENCES IN TODAY'S MUSIC MARKET OR ON SOUTH PARK ARE NOT RELEVANT." My understanding was that, given the availability of the use of the talk page to discuss the issue and obtain consensus, and wikipedia guidance at WP:TRIVIA, such inline comments would be both redundant and discouraged.
 * In addition, the user appears to have taken ownership of other articles including Scarlett Johannson and Johnny Depp, the latter also resulting in multiple reversions with no edit summary, with associated self-confessed incivility, as per 1 and 2. Nevertheless, would be happy to leave this issue alone if needs be. Regards, Little Professor (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw the hidden note, and perhaps it is necessary given the film that is coming out. Trivia sections are discouraged and the note I imagine is to ward off multiple additions to the article in said South Park and Family Guy references. The hidden note is one way. I would have laden the article down with so many citations that that would discourage many users from placing trivial items in it. Both ways work and neither necessarily denotes ownership. Neither does bragging. I've seen Wildhartlivie around, so I am sure she is aware of the policy on ownership. I have written 14 featured articles and I own none of them. Saying that I wrote all of an article does not imply or mean that I own it. Reverting additions to the article that reference reliable sources, saying that such additions are unnecessary because I wrote the article and it is complete and intact the way I wrote it is ownership. Telling other editors to back off from tinkering with the article is definitely ownership. But removing problematic and unsourced edits is not. If you want to improve the John Dillinger article, you are welcome to do it. You should check out every book on Dillinger written, read all of them, then summarize what they say about his life. --Moni3 (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Moni. I was writing a response when you posted this. I've tried to explain this or discuss monitoring of this article with this editor but rather than respond or discuss, he reverted my messages to his talk page under the guise of "rv rant" and "rm rant #2". An administrator, Garion96 reverted his removal of the hidden note on John Dillinger, calling it a "helpful hidden comment". When I responded to his template today, and admittedly had lost patience with this issue, I still tried to explain the rationale behind the edits here, only to have it reverted "per WP:CIVIL" and a personal attack template left on my talk page here. I would really like this editor to stop leaving unwarranted templates on my talk page, as he has done here, here, here, and here. He notified me that he had filed an AN/I complaint here, when in fact it was for mediation and did not notify me of this posting. None of this helps sort out any issues, especially when he refuses to respond to talk page requests to discuss it. It is bordering on harassment. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What would I like to change about this? Apart from the undue formalism, the realisation that Wildhartlivie is not a "he" would be a step forward. Due diligence, you know. Rodhull  andemu  01:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * [Insert big grin here] Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In what way would it be a step forward? I'm not sure how the gender of the editor affects the disputes in question? Little Professor (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that Little Professor left templates that are meant for new users, shows that Little Professor did not prudently look at Wildhartlivies contributions and history on Wikipedia. If Little Professor is a new user, perhaps a template explaining "harassment" should be left on his/her talk page. Wildhartlivie deals fairly with others and she only reacts after reasonable measures have been exhausted. Little Professor's complaints and warring appear to be frivolous and meant to agitate and harass, rather than mediate any legitimate complaints he/she may have, if any.--Victor9876 (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have checked WP:TM and WP:UW, but have yet to find any guidance stating that templates are 'meant for new users'. My understanding was that all contributors are expected to follow Wikipedia guidelines, regardless of their history or previous contributions. I would welcome clarification on this matter if I am wrong. Little Professor (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * May be referring to this: WP:DTTR. --Moni3 (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ratel warring? vandalizing? bad faith?
User Ratel is trying to archive an active discussion in Aktion T4. This User Ratel is clearly involved in the discussion.


 * First attempt to archive the active discussion
 * Second attempt to archive the active discussion
 * Third attempt to archive the active discussion
 * Fourth attemot to archive the active discussion


 * First warning
 * Second warning

comment made by 190.25.101.144 (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The code will only archive conversation without inactivity for four days. I agree with what the user who started this thread: Talk:Action T4. This particular thread you're talking about also seems to diverge somewhat into forum-like territory. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 05:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Ratel? I remember that name. Wasn't that this guy who was here just a few days ago, Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive556? 70.49.2.18 (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that I am not the issue here. The IP above, 190.25.101.144, has totally wrecked the Talk page at Aktion T4 with ravings that filled the page and chased all other users away. Now he is resisting any attempt to archive old conversations. I suggest you have a look at what transpired on that Talk page before making any further comments. Note that this IP has also reverted the page about 7 times in the last 24hrs. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 07:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have commented there and closed the discussion there. Everything useful has been said,and a good deal more . DGG (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In the discussion it was asked for a "reliable" (according to Wikipedia Policies) source, supporting that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4, because the current article claims the contrary in this section: Aktion_T4.
 * There are a lot of sources, but at least one "reliable" source was provided in this post:Talk:Action_T4. This source ( Alexander Leo, Medical science under dictatorship, New England Journal of Medicine, No.241, pages 39-47 ) states that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4
 * User:Ratel claims euthanasia has nothing to do with Aktion T4 and he is involved in the mentioned dicussion.
 * Therefore: why is he allowed to archive exactly all the discussion including the post providing the demanded source?
 * Note that User:Ratel posted his first attempt to autoarchive the discussion some hours after the post providing the demanded source.
 * comment made by 190.27.99.91 (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

IP-based pedophilia activism
Based on and, would it be possible to stop further editing from 71.253.11.98 for an appropriate period of time? Erik9 (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * this is one of the cases where the proper time is indefinite. I've done the block. DGG (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse the block, but not the length. Reset to 90 days (it's a dynamic IP). –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 05:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. didn't realise it was dynamic. DGG (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the two diffs, they appear to be run of the mill vandalism. --Farix (Talk) 19:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Israel Project
There seems to be an organized effort to remove criticism at Israel Project. (See previous Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive556) Edits are coming either from anons or from new single-purpose accounts.
 * - self identifies as "I am in charge of the web department at The Israel Project." Section blanking.
 * - edit comments read "I am the Web director at the Israel Project. Please stop accepting hate edits abour our group." Section blanking.
 * - section blanking of same section as above.
 * - currently edit warring, 3RR problem. See . --John Nagle (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Request 48 hours of semi-protection to quiet down the changes by anons. --John Nagle (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A checkuser for these would result in "probably" (and confirmed for the latter 2). --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Block of Antihijacker
I have indefinitely blocked for harassing. I'm reasonably sure that Antihijacker is the anon IP who was repeatedly vandalizing Jorfer's home page yesterday. As Antihijacker's edits, taken out of context, might appear innocent to some observers, I am bringing the block here for review. -- Donald Albury 16:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * He has also vandalized others, if this is the same person. - Denimadept (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse block. Toddst1 (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Any idea who User:Gregor8159 is, who removed this thread and a related one at User talk:Jorfer?--Atlan (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He's blocked, that's who he is, as a sock of none other than Antihijacker. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 20:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspecy is another sock. --bonadea contributions talk 20:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I now have also seen User:Beardedmanners who may be involved with this. - Denimadept (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked all, range blocked temporarily. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Racist user
, a very racist, controversial and disruptive editor with long history of blocks, is still vandalizings pages of groups of people he doesn't like, he's edit-warring, he uses sockpuppets and annon IPs to curse, abuse, attack, insult, and offend people of other races. Here he is cursing at other editors and also adding in the article that the mother of a politician in Afghanistan was raped by ethnic Tajiks He did the recent vandalisms on Kabul, Afghan (name), Abdullah Abdullah (politician), Talk:Jamal-al-Din_Afghani, Sher Shah Suri, and others. He is constantly editing articles pertaining to Afghanistan and its people with very negative view. By trying to evade from admins, he first edits with his usual user name and then vandalizeand edit-war with a set of IP # but all appear to be in the same location in Germany where he lives. He and the IPs share the same view, always refusing to accept Afghanistan's existance in the 18th century, , giving Tajiks a good name and the people that he hates (the Pashtuns) a very negative image almost every page he visits. He is trying to change Afghanistan into Iran and remove the Pashto language from every article, which is the one of the official languages of the country. I'm pretty sure he is using those IPs and socks, he is trying to change his writings when he uses IPs to fool admins.119.73.1.41 (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate your input and research into this, the evidence you present isn't quite strong enough. Millions of people feel very strongly about issues like this, and Germany has a pretty large population. Just because they originate from the same region and share similar views does not mean they are the same user. I'll look into this further, of course. Master of Puppets  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D  01:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Notified user that they are the subject of this conversation. Master of Puppets  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D  01:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't get my point. I'm saying Tajik (an Afghan) is in the same location (city or town) in Germany as the IPs (each city in a country uses different ISP with different IP #s), Tajik and the IPs edit the same articles on Wikipedia at same timing, with same view, and they even attack other editors in a very same way, they also speak the Afghan Persian language. I don't think there is a single German who constantly edit Afghan articles except this one Afghan. Anyway, Before defending himself against his actions.. Tajik always first speaks about the people who report him, so that way admins focus on them instead of him. Look at the bottom, both Inuit18 (sockpuppet) and Tajik did just that. Tajik is not allowed to revert more than once, so obviously he uses IPs and sockpuppets that are usually not detected or reported. Interestingly, sometimes he even uses annon IP to talk to himself on talk pages, which is another way to try to fool us. Tajik is not one of those who will leave and allow others to edit Afghanistan related articles, he wants to be in full control and keep all the negative things he added in them. Tajik is also on Youtube and a number of other sites where he is spreading so much racism against the Pashtun people. His favorite ID is ParsistaniTajik, the following is a link to one of his Youtube ID. http://www.youtube.com/user/ParsistaniTajik  --119.73.7.144 (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * talk has reported a very important issue. If we look at contributions, we can clearly see that majority of his/her edits are focused on giving a negative image to Pashtuns in wikipedia or removing Pashto related content in wikipedia. He/She is playing a double standard role here in wikipedia. If an article is about a Tajik warlord the user avoids adding anything negative about the personality, however if it is about a Pashtun warlord, the user tries its best to give him/her a negative image. The same goes for political parties. These are some of the topics which he has vandalised - POV:


 * Karim Khoram, Afghan Social Democratic Party (Afghan Mellat), Kabul, Maidan Shar, Murghab District, Jawid Sharif and many more.


 * The user does not keep a neutral point of view when editing an article. (Ketabtoon (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Not only that but he is a very racist person filled with so much hate. Follow this carefully,,,,, here he is using the Germany IP (94.219.214.232) cursing at you with very bad words that only ghetto people use. Now compare that writing of his with his Youtube account ID writing here,,,, (read his comment at the very bottom) so now this should confirm that he is the same racist person, he uses the same exact curse words, spellings, etc., (example: Pigtun) --119.73.2.19 (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Both of these users are vandals and sockpupptets.--Inuit18 (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is just a waste of time. The IP - who, b.t.w. is the IP-sockpuppet of either banned User:NisarKand or banned User:Khampalak (see checkuser; 119.30.78.26 and 119.30.72.64 are confirmed IPs of banned User:NisarKand) - is himself vandalizing various articles, deleting sourced material etc. has just been reported to an admin because of his destructive behaviour. I have no problems with a checkuser file, comparing my IP to others. But I also would like to ask admins to compare the IPs of these two users with the banned users mentioned above. Thank you. Tajik (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The admins are very welcome to do a checkuser on me and go through my edits. (Ketabtoon (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

I worked on this issue a lot in 2008. I don't have time this morning to delve deeply into this thread, but later this evening I will set aside some time (about 12 hours from now). Kingturtle (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet another editor pretending to be an administrator
has added him/her self to the Administrators' category and the Administrators willing to make difficult blocks category. I'm not sure what action is appropriate here. They've also been removing the blocked template from User:Bigen182, Dougweller (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh. If he keeps readding it then we would have cause for concern, but I'd say to keep an eye out, considering this gem of an edit. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * lulz .. well, I left a note - hopefully he'll "get it". — Ched : <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? 11:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or doling out page move warnings for a user that hasn't moved a page since June. Looks like a POS account. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  11:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we need Category:Non-administrators willing to make difficult unblocks? Hans Adler 12:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As supreme ruler of wikipedia, I'll be happy to deal with this. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Your Majesty -- Deville (Talk) 14:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see he has Twinkle - I'd take it away if I knew how and wasn't scared that the supreme ruler would get cross or I'd start another 'adminz be bad guyz and abuse me' thread. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Twinkle revoked. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 22:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, somebody is going to have to tell Jimbo that he's been replaced, when he gets back from vacation. "All hail the new king" — Ched : <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ?  16:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where are the Rouge Admins when you need one? Edison (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wasn't paying attention. You need Jimbo blocked again, or is the main page thing again?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

←Sorry, I meant to post this last night, but I removed the two categories and left him a note on his talk, followed by a longer (and nicer, I might add) note from Ched. I agree with \ /, if he continues to act this way, then further sanctions would ensue. Otherwise, I think it's settled for now. →<font style="color:black">javért <font style="color:red">stargaze 22:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do always have my handy-dandy User:Bwilkins/notanadmin template...you're all welcome to use it ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 23:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Advice please
Following the handy guide at the top of the submission page here - kudos on that BTW - I filed Wikiquette alerts which is now being recommended to being sent here. Should it be and if so how should it happen? -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   14:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looked very quickly - one more comment like that should earn the editor an "indef" vacation. Full Stop. — Ched : <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ?  15:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So ... does anything need to be done? Should the WQA be deferred to here or this thread to there or ? -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   21:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No edits from that account since you posted the Wqa and he was warned. I would think, let an admin know if it happens again and cite both the Wqa and this thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, will do. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   23:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia vandalism from User:Euclidthegreek
This user is repeatedly attempting to import uncyclopedia nonsense. He has attempted to make "Euclidthegreek/AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA..." and "User:Euclidthegreek/There is no article here"; both copy pastings of Uncyclopedia pages. He has also attempted to vandalize mainspace as seen here and created vandalism pages at Jimbo II of Wikipedia and Tiny Cube. After a final warning for vandalism, he created the redirect "WP:ONWHEELS". There is a fine line between being funny and being blatantly unconstructive.  Triplestop  x3  15:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm having a tough time imagining this user being very productive. Does anyone have enough of a math background to know whether his dodecahedron-related changed are correct or are they rubbish? --B (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked&#58; .. Since the editor had only received a single warning, I opted to AGF and give them a final chance before being blocked indefinitely. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The user claims to be this disruptive IP I reported a few days ago. Celestra (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Part of it's correct, part of it's nonsense. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

CSD-G4
Is Atticus: ...Dragging the Lake, Vol. 4 a significant match to the one that was deleted in AFD yesterday? Joe Chill (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Identical. Deleted and salted. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Boyhere continuing to upload unfree images with no fair use rationales
Despite the warnings on his talk page and a ton of templated requests to do so, he has not complied and has even the missing rationale template from one image. His user page also seems to run afoul of WP:USER, and his signature is on iffy grounds with the non-standard formatting and excessive asterisks. <font color="#006600">GraYoshi2x► talk 01:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey_D._Gordon

 * Note that this still requires action.      bsmithme    08:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This article needs administrator attention. There are two editors who continue to remove content from this article which I have reviewed to be properly sourced content and verifiable by a reliable sources (I could be mistaken, though). And while I may be mistaken, the editors continue to apparently ignore the talk page to discuss the issue. bsmithme   21:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you provide diffs and identify the editors who are having a problem. The format below may help you organize your presentation. Jehochman Talk 22:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement over WP:BLP on Jeffrey_D._Gordon. The two editors believe that a section added by user Geo_Swan is libelous and should be removed.
 * Locus of dispute, or action in dispute


 * Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion
 * Antoniomarg8
 * Robclement
 * Geo_Swan
 * Mohamsaed


 * Description of the dispute and the main evidence


 * 1) I found that the article had had a substantial portion removed by Robclement so I initiated an investigation.
 * 2) Robclement did use an edit summary describing the action.
 * 3) Robclement did blank the talk page replacing it with what I think is an except from WP:BLP.
 * 4) Robclement did make an entry on the article's talk page after blanking.
 * 5) After reviewing the quotes, statements, and facts asserted for the section in question, I found that they were both referenced and that the references were reliable. Substantiated by this source (Miami Herald) and this source (Washington Post).
 * 6) I undid the revision by Robclement then added a reply to the article's talk page and asked that further changes be discussed there.
 * 7) My revert was then undone by user Antoniomarg8 without edit summary or talk page discussion.
 * 8) I assumed good faith and undid user Antoniomarg8 edit.
 * 9) My edit was again reverted by user Antoniomarg8 again without talk page discussion.
 * Furthermore. After further investigation I found that user Antoniomarg8 subsequently vandalized user page of Geo_Swan multiple times. 1 2 3 INV:5     bsmithme    23:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Further note. The talk page was blanked and I am not sure the best way to restore it.      bsmithme    23:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)
 * I've restored Talk:Jeffrey D. Gordon. Geo Swan (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mohamsaed, another contributor with just a single edit, also made a large excision.
 * I do my best to make sure my contributions comply with policy. I have made close to 45,000 edits.  I don't expect to have succeeded every single time.  I've left notes for the contributors who made these excisions to return to article's talk page to explain the reasoning behind their excisions.  Geo Swan (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the source may support the addition of this content. Editors need to discuss whether the biography is balances, or gives undue weight to these controversial matters. The two accounts who have been removing the content appear to be single purpose, and may very well be controlled by the same editor. We should not overlook the possibility that one of the real life people involved in this matter may be trying to influence the content of Wikipedia. I think it may help to leave messages for the two new editors welcoming them, and asking them not to remove sourced content, not to edit war, and not to use more than one account. We should also advise them how to address concerns about the content in a productive way. Should those steps fail, a block might then be necessary to prevent further problems, but I think we need to try the lesser steps first. Jehochman Talk 02:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by uninvolved editors
 * I think those suggestions should be executed by someone else. I will not be taking action on this matter in order to prevent appearing bias and disingenuous.      bsmithme    03:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Remarks by closing editor

User:PProctor
Articles related to organic metals are potentially highly visible since this area was recognized with a Nobel Prize a few years ago. This article and some related ones are closely policed by User:Pproctor. PProctor is apparently the embittered student of a John McGinness (one-time nominee for deletion for non-notability, authored by PProctor). McGinness is not mentioned in the Nobel presentations. Proctor also emphasizes other minor contributions in an apparent ploy to detract from the contributions from the Nobel Prize winners. I have tried to edit in this space, but I dont really have the time and few other editors have expertise in this topic, much less the stamina to duel with the skillful and persistent PProctor. PProctor is something of a conspiracy theorist in his other edits. The situation has prevailed for many years, which is unfortunate because again, as the Nobel committee tried to communicate, the area is an important one in the scientific community. My recommendation: that PProctor be banned from editing on topics related to organic metals. The justification for the ban would be conflict of interest. Thanks,--Smokefoot (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be some evidence of WP:OWNing going on there. This reversion looks like the editor has positioned him/herself as a gatekeeper. This looks like a pretty messy situation around specific technical material. Toddst1 (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The material is pretty technical and "simple" efforts to rectify the situation be reverting various of PProctor's edits will be unsatisfactory. PProctor has owned these articles for so many years that his strange views are woven deeply into the fabric of this and related articles.  The phase of having skillful, non-technical editors swooping into this space is long passed and such admins will be foiled by PProctor's well-honed tactics and scientific jargonology. The problem is intractable. Sorry for the bad news.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. You'll need to prepare a pretty detailed case then if you want the editor restricted. Toddst1 (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I lack the time to "prepare a pretty detailed case" required to rectify this situation, which is exactly what this troll is counting on. It is unfortunate that scientifically oriented articles are unable to attract the level of administrative attention that social issues garner, but the predicament is understandable.  Thanks,--Smokefoot (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * troll is too strong a word, but it does look like ownership, as can easily happen here in relatively isolated areas. Disputes over scientific priority can be as long-lasting as any on politics or religion. Sometimes one side is unambiguously right, but the development of a concept can easily leave many different people thinking the key step was theirs.   There are quite a number of people here capable of understanding the science--even among the admins.--but I think editing, not admin action is what is required. I think we simply need more eyes on the articles rather than restriction.  DGG (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Anybody that knows about this issue is welcome to comment on it, subject to the customary constraints of NOR, etc..  "Not have time" seems to be a pretty weak excuse for violating NOR and presentng what appears to be mere personal opinion.  Then he comes over here when I ask for some documentation.  The history here is the history.  I carefully document everything and give external references to articles on the history of conductive polymers,  etc..  E.g., one book chapter bears the telling title "Nothing new under the sun" with reference to conductive polymers.


 * And no, I am not "embittered".  For one thing,  I left this field for a much more rewarding one decades ago.  Most particularly,  we were at best only the third people to report a highly-conductive organic polymer and this was 14 years too late.  So any "priorty dispute" issue is moot. My present interest is the history of discovery.  As I note,  experts are welcome here,  subject to NOR, etc.  This is because we are reasonably-assumed to know the literature.


 * Also, the changes I reverted were fairly extensive and made without discussion.  I reverted with a "this needs to be discussed" note and then discussed them on the discussion page.  so far,  the anonymous poster has not returned.


 * BTW, my role model is Carl Correns, who rediscovered Gregor Mendel's laws of heredity and, rather than take credit for them,  went out of his way to ensure that Mendel was given proper credit.Pproctor (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgot to mention: The reference to Balto et al, the first discoverers of highly-conductive organic polymers, was provided by an anonymous poster using an IP number tracing back to the University of Woolongong, a hotbed of research in this area.  Much of what I have been doing is defending this reference.  True,  not to be outdone,  i went out and found an additional report.  Far from being self-serving or a conflict of interest,  this dropped us one more step down the priority chain.  The history is the history.Pproctor (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Second Mexican Empire
There is a user, User:TownDown, who is writing in a non-encyclopedic style and is erasing and replacing ALL other information in the article. This user is not working with others, even after others extending a hand. He is also accusing others of sock-puppetry. We need a mediator. C.Kent87 (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The user is being investigated by sockpuppet  because his possible sockpuppet  and  blanked the article twice   removing flags in svg format and important information. --TownDownHow's going? 01:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Gave notice to TownDown, and informed him that mass-inserting POV statements and performing entire-article changes really requires consensus on the talk page. No such consensus exists. In addition, he has performed over four wholesale revisions, although if he agrees to stop edit warring and agrees to mediation and talk page consensus, then they will not be reported for such violation. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  01:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know who are you, but the administrators must check these reports of  . --TownDownHow's going? 01:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Former administrator who can spot a disruptive user a mile away. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  01:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a personal attack, you know it?. --TownDownHow's going? 01:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. And your disruptive AN3 and SPI filings are becoming pointless, considering that you have conducted four wholesale reverts. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  01:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you say four individual reverts?, or three individual editions   and 1 reverted ?.--TownDownHow's going? 02:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fifth wholesale revert, with a misleading edit summary (actually, none at all) by . <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  02:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 6RR on Second Mexican Empire, 48 hrs.
 * TownDown - edit warring and reverting an article more than 3 times in 24 hrs are strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. When your block expires you need to engage in good faith discussions on article talk pages and not restart this type of behavior again.  Further abuse will lead to more blocks.  You need to talk to people and try to achieve consensus rather than beat articles back and forth like that.  We expect you to edit in a civil and constructive manner and avoid making personal attacks in editing.
 * Wikipedia's community expects that all editors will edit in a constructive and adult manner, and try to cooperate with each other. I hope and expect that you can do better in the future.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Deepmath
seems to have nothing but troublesome edits. His userpage, since deleted, had 50+ kilobytes of long, strange rambling, including attacks and blatant misinformation (something about Cyanide making gays straight or somesuch). Other than that, he created Stock trading terms, a very poorly written and redundant article which has an informal tone ("Stock trading terms can be a little confusing.") and even admits "some of these [references] may be a little sketchy". He has also been adding unsourced OR to Gambling and information theory with a buttload of reverts. Not one of his edits is in good faith, and his user talk page is almost as bad as his userpage was. I think this user is easily blockable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not one of his edits is in good faith? It looks like he wrote the entire Hirschman uncertainty article.  Is that one bad?   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  02:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That one is decent, but the rest are dodgy; like I said, the POV pushing and original research, as well as the blatant nonsense, are concerning. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are other entire article contributions at Regular conditional probability and Conditional mutual information, recent unreverted edits at Adherent point, Beta function, Gambling and information theory (also includes some reverted edits), Isolated point, Limit point, etc. Yes, the user and user talk pages are/were a bit odd, some of the edit summaries are more biting than need be, and there are/were a few warnings for some pretty serious infractions, but I think it could be handled with some guidance and mentoring.  I notice some Swedish on his talk page - perhaps there is a bit of a language hurdle?  Regardless, worth looking into more deeply.   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  03:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Block Review:
was blocked for violating the 3RR policy after being reported by. I noticed that after looking at the diffs that each one is a different piece of text as if William S. Saturn was tendentiously trying to add a bit of text against consensus with Tarc reverting them. I also noted that one of the diff's provided was of a completely unrelated revert. I also question this warning as it could be construed as questionable in intent. Could someone please review this block. Brothejr (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with this block. He made 4 reverts within 24 hours. The fact that it was a different piece of text doesn't matter. I also don't see how the warning was questionable. Saturn's behavior is irrelevant to the block. If Tarc wants to argue the block, I'm sure he can do it himself.--Atlan (talk) 10:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like a standard block. Reverts do not have to be to the same material and there are four here in 24 hours.  From my point of view William S. Saturn may have been trying to find compromise wording since the talk page shows an ongoing discussion of how to handle the caption. Shell   babelfish 10:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be recorded to General sanctions/Obama article probation/Log of sanctions since the article is under the WP:ARBCOM probation The user in question, Tarc is well enough to know it because he has been listed as a guilty party of the ArbCom case.--Caspian blue 11:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The fly in the ointment here is that Tarc was acting to try to keep the article more neutral, to remove pointy comments and questionable sources. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, nobody ever thinks that they're the bad guy.--Caspian blue 13:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The edits speak for themselves. Tarc's edits were good, i.e. neutral. The edits he removed were not. For example, he removed a link to WND. WND is not a valid source. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unforetunately, the reasons for violating 3RR don't include sound editing... Soxwon (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * BINGO .... ladies and gentlemen, hold your cards - we have a winner! — Ched : <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? 13:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The argument is being made that the complainant in the case should also be blocked for violating the 3-revert rule. Regardless, this does elevate the visibility of this pages' problems so that previously-dormant editors might get re-involved. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * that doesnt really hold up. Wikipedia is a place of collegial editing, and Tarcs behavior on the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article has crossed the line set forth by the article probator guarantys. [[User:Smith Jones] 15:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which simply means that others will have to monitor the article and be sure Saturn doesn't try to slip that junk into it again. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that this 3RR rule doesn't make any sense if it leads to automatic banning. What should happen is that a 3RR violation could lead to someone being reported and then one can look into the matter. If you violate 3RR in order to revert changes that bring the article very far from any accpeted consensus of the regular editors on the talki page, then one should look at the editing behavior of the other editor, even though he/she may not have violated 3RR (as the first edit does not count).

So, if on the Global Warming page a comes around and he makes edits that are technically not vandalism, I still have the right to revert an unlimited number of times without me being blocked. That may be necessary if the other regular editors aren't around for some reason (as I suspect happened yesterday).

Also, I made a pre-emtive report here in which I claim to have the right to violate the 3RR rule on the entropy page for a good reason. Count Iblis (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit warring the entropy page... There's a joke in there somewhere. Wikidemon (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR exists to rpotect pages from being the battlegrounds of an edit war. by reverting over and over instead of using the talkpage to review debates, you are seesneitally circumventing the usual dispute resolutin processses and simply using your force of time to control how articles go. thats not fair to either the readers or to the other editors, which is why people like Tarc need to be following the rules instead of going vigilante just because they think that someoen else has allegedly violated the rules. User:Smith Jones 16:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It won't kill Tarc to sit out a few more hours. However, if I had been handling the block review, I would have reduced the block.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (ecx2):The 3RR rule is fine the way it is. I think a 3RR exemption for reverting to the consensus version is a really bad idea and could possibly give a great deal of leverage to editors owning articles. Anyway, this is not the place to discuss policy changes.--Atlan (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that is a really bad idea, the assumption and guarding on grounds of consensus is nothing more than a way to control an article. Regarding Tarcs block, the guy that brought the case even talked to him first and then after explaining it to him then offered not to report him if he reverted his last edit, I should be so lucky to get so many chances. Looking at the comments he has put in his unblock request he still hasn't got the point. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC))


 * There are several things going on at the same time. First, guarding against disruptive edits and fringe opinions is a fine thing to do.  Editors who wish to change the content on a page are welcome within reason and within guidelines to present their proposal and try to gain consensus for a change, but talk of article ownership, abuse, etc., is not very helpful - it's really an unfounded accusation of bad faith and it's not going to go anywhere.  Second, Saturn's edits to promote fringe birther theories and generally disparage Obama in the past few weeks have been problematic, and go to the very reason for Obama article probation in the first place.  An incident Saturn started landed on this page a couple days ago and indirectly resulted in a couple blocks that are now before Arbcom.  Sooner or later Saturn is going to have to tone it way down on edit wars and civility.  Third, Tarc indeed violated 3RR and should not have done so even to oppose what Tarc thought of as (and which I agree is) poorly sourced POV editing.  On the technicalities, Saturn was within his rights to file the 3RR report, gave Tarc the courtesy of a notice and opportunity to self-revert, and only filed the report when Tarc refused.  Tarc made the common mistake of thinking that reversions of different pieces of text do not count towards 3RR.  However, I don't see any reason to keep the block if Tarc says it won't happen again - blocks are preventive, not punishment.  Fourth and finally, it is too bad whenever someone gets blocked for good faith efforts to maintain the article when they're right on the content.  Not because it's okay to edit war - no matter what the content is, as long as it's not vandalism, copyvios, or gross BLP violations, it's always best to avoid editing confrontations.  The problem is that most good editors who stay on the topic area long enough will end up with bruises and blemishes from scrapes with problematic editors.  We've had some terribly manipulative editors on the Obama pages, the worst being some extensive sock farms run by puppetmaster(s?) that got better and better at wikigaming.  They point to the block histories as a vindication.  It would have been far better for an administrator to warn Tarc away.  Anyway, the take home is that Tarc ought to be unblocked upon promising not to further edit war, and we should encourage Saturn to try to get along.Wikidemon (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This edit tells you all you need to know about the POV-pushing shenanigans that Saturn is up to. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you calling shenanigans? I agree that this statement suggests a particular opinion about the birther movement, namely that it makes a legitimate claim questioning Obama's citizenship, birth, eligibility, etc.  The opinion that this is a respectable question can lead to some disagreement about how the material should be presented.  However, everyone is entitled to an opinion, nothing wrong with that.  As long as you can edit collaboratively with others, you can believe whatever you want.  If you're not editing in a collegial way, sometimes it's best to leave it at that and not look too deeply for what's in someone's heart of hearts.  Wikidemon (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was a bit severe in my assesment. It is his first block after almost 6000 edits. If he wrote an unblock request understanding and accepting why he was blocked I could support the unblock, not that my opinion carries weight. I also appreciate wikidemons added insights. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Based on discussion here, and my own experience with Tarc (we don't always agree, but he has clue), I've reduced the length of the block and he should be unblocked about right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got a problem with the initial block. 2 of the 4 'reverts' listed in the 3RR report weren't actually substantive, repeated reverts of content. The first 'revert' was never repeated (the bit about Pat Boone) and the second and third reverts are two different portions of a sentence. the fourth revert is an honest to god revert to the third (though additional content has been added in between). I know that 3RR isn't an entitlement, but this seems to have been a case where we treated 3RR like a tripwire and automatically blocked Tarc without looking at the totality of the situation. I'm sure the blocking admin disagrees, but I feel the initial block didn't reflect the content of the posted diffs to 3rr. IMO, there was no vio. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the angle I went with the initial unblock request, I'd always thought that different material didn't stack like that, and certainly #1 shouldn't have counted at all as it was effectively a plain edit, and in a different section of the article entirely. There goes my clean block log, though.  Its like a sharpnel wound rather than a direct hit, so I'll wear it like one of John Kerry's purple hearts. ;) Tarc (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes welcome back Tarc, a small lesson learnt, take care not to get into too much trouble as they get bigger, regards Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

On another note, can an admin evaluate the entry in General sanctions/Obama article probation/Log of sanctions? IMO this was a straight 3RR and really had nothing to do with article probation, but beyond that I don't think it is a great idea to let the complainants put their own spin on the text. I removed the entry with a summary that if an admin wishes to re-add then so be it, but hell, the page hadn't even refreshed and it was already reverted by Saturn. Do we have a stalking issue to deal with now? Cliffsnotes; 1) was this all a part of article probation, and 2) do non-admins get to add block/ban notices? Tarc (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the addition. Whether or not the blocking admin feels that it belongs there is up to him/her. Protonk (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The page itself was created by a "non-admin" and has a long list of "non-admins" warning to other non-admins or colleague editors. Besides, editors who did not violate 3RR, have been listed there for disruption and the article talk page says it is under the Obama case probation. Even if some people do not consider the first one is a revert, he made one more revert that the report did not list, so Tarc clearly violated 3RR anyway. Unless he is removing vandalism or BLP, well, there is no excuse for 3RR violation in general. The blocking admin just abides the rule. However, it is certainly not a bright idea that William S. Saturn added the log as well as Tarc reverted it as soon as his block was lifted. Given that William S. Saturn first edited the page, the stalking accusation is really dubious. Any third party or blocking admin can add the name, but well, I can see "involved people" added some logs there.--Caspian blue 19:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that was a response to me, but here goes. It's fine if a non-admin adds folks to the sanctions page. It's not fine if a party to a dispute adds another party. Nothing will come of that but drama. Protonk (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not specifically directed to you nor Tarc. I said what the page has that edit history.--Caspian blue 20:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I'm the "non-admin" in question, and I agree with Caspian Blue that we shouldn't read too much into this list. I created the page when I divided the old Obama probation page into several sub-pages and moved them from article talk space to wikipedia space under the general sanctions page.  I'm one of several editors who have regularly added reports to the log of sanctions, and I've been fairly haphazard in deciding what to add.  There are plenty of blocks and bans that were for things like sockpuppetry and 3RR that did not follow the Obama probation path.  But also there have been sanctions that nobody bothered to record.  As it stands the log is mainly useful for keeping a record of Obama-related article problems and gauging the level of trouble over time.  I've tried to separate out simple vandalism, trolling, and sockpuppetry because those sanctions aren't controversial and don't have much to do with article probation.  If we want it to be more of an official log we should start a new section that's reserved only for actions where the administrator in question issues the sanction with reference to article probation.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - going forward we shouldn't have any question about official versus unofficial logs. It still makes sense to compile in one place the the disruption issues on Obama pages, but at the same time adding someone's name to the list should not be used as a mean to shame them (except in the case of trolls / socks / vandals, where it is helpful to be able to quickly identify past offenders who have returned).  Wikidemon (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit was reverted. A bit about logging first.
 * The purpose of the log is to allow others to (re)view any actions taken under Obama probation, usually within a reasonable time of them being taken. Please note that the requirement is that such "sanctions be logged"; it was deliberately worded in this way. Although the imposing admin is responsible for ensuring that it is logged within a reasonable time, they are not required to log it themselves - any user may do so (provided that they are uninvolved obviously). This is especially useful if an administrator has forgotten, or is running low on time, or some other reason.
 * Per the purpose of the log, if a user finds a sanction unjustified, and said sanction cannot fall under general sanctions (due to lack of community discussion), then they bring attention to the issue, usually by exhausting the appeal avenues. Another example is where an uninvolved user reviews a sanction and finds it should fall under general sanctions rather than Obama probation, then it should not be logged under Obama probation, although the effect of the sanction will not change.
 * In this way, the need for separating out these logging of actions is not necessary (or reserving a certain section for official vs non-official). Practically, perhaps not everyone is going to look at the log as much as they can, should or ought to - however, each action that was logged should have been reviewed in terms of appropriateness (within a reasonable time of it being taken). If they did not stay there (see for example ), then they did not fall under Obama probation. If they did, then it's presumed to be accepted.
 * In this case, although the edit was reverted for the reasons above, Wikidemon was correct in noting that a name should not be added to the list for the purpose of shaming anyone - it is, after all, just a means to review actions taken under the provision, or even non-probation actions in that area. Given the dispute, and the fact that the review was called for much earlier here (more as a typical block) rather than Obama probation, there's no need to log this block (and block-reduction) there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is addressing the fact that the Obama articles are under special probation due to repeated contentious edits. The edits by Saturn should have led to his being blocked. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or maybe start with a warning? I'm not sure that an authoritative neutral administrator has ever asked him to chill out.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Er, a solitary edit on the sanction page is not "edit warring", caspian. Also, that last edit you linked was many hours after the fact, as well as being a reversion of clearly problematic material ,if not plain vandalism.  You did look at what that edit actually, y'know, edited, didn't you? It can be more clearly seen here that I removed the labeling of the Obama's opponents as "lunatic fringe activists", as well as the removal of some original research-ish editorializing casting aspersions on McCain's "is he or isn't he natural-born?" case. Tarc (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I modified to the phrase "edit war" to "revert" per you request.--Caspian blue 20:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address your questionable calling out of a separate edit. Would it have been better to leave text in that described a group of people as lunatics? Tarc (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When you were blocked again for the autoblock, the thread remained "peaceful". :-) I hope you learn the lesson with the experience.Caspian blue 00:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the question I posed to you was non-peaceful, and I notice you are yet again ducking it. You still can't get over my support of blocks of your buddy ChildofMidnight, which is the real reason you're here trying to connect unconnected edits into a longer 3RR report, and so on.  So yea caspian; with your involvement, I have learned a great deal. :) Tarc (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, no. Tarc, I have independent opinions on what are wrong and inappropriate. I wish you learn a lesson that you can not freely escape from your own behaviors. That's what I've observed from your 3RR block. I wish you behave more civilly and assume good faith just like what ArbCom firmly warned you. Tarc. If you want to continue the pointless spinoff, then move to you talk page. I may or may not freely accept your invitation, though. :)--Caspian blue 00:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ya know Tarc, maybe if you concentrated a little more on the quality of your own edits, and a little less on what others are doing, you might face a little less opposition here. And no - the irony of this post is not lost on me. — Ched : <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? 04:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The quality of my edits are just fine, bud. When someone makes a spurious "this other edit was bad too!" accusation, then I will defend myself.  And if said person continues to duck and dodge that defends, I will call them out. Tarc (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Saturn is now the subject of a complaint at WQA. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I had pointed out in my citation earlier, Saturn is engaged in promoting the birther movement. Wikipedia is not about promoting political movements and fringe theories. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Heqwm2
Having reviewed this user's contributions, it became immediately clear s/he has ignored the heavy amount of warnings and the block. At this point, we're getting brilliantly unneutral additions like. I am pretty sure a warning from a non-administrator would do nothing at this point, given the 10 or so on the talk page. Would an administrator be willing to step in with a remedy? Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's written on her Talk page since November. Plus a notice of this discussion should be put there. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The timing should not be relevant when someone has showed a propopensity, over years, to ignore comments. Warnings do not get invalidated after a set amount of time, IPs being the exception because they may be multiple people. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But without current warnings, nobody knows that the editor is still carrying out the edits. You need to start again here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Spamming on a User's talk page
User_talk:NawlinWiki got linked to from 4chan with a request that users replace all text on the page with "hello." Many users are doing so. 70.152.141.62 (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please quickly semi-protect User talk:NawlinWiki... someone's getting creative with their IP hopping. I posted at RPP, but thought I'd poke here. Thanks  <span style="padding:2px;background: #cccccc; color: #0000cc; BORDER-RIGHT: #6699cc 3px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #6699cc 3px solid;">  7   talk &#124; &Delta; &#124;   09:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Semiprotected for a few hours. ➲ REDVERS It sucks to be me 09:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User:HeadphoneBOT
A recent vandal with a misleading Bot-like name. Delete ? Materialscientist (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Account has been indeffed. Ironholds (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Crowley-Gates an Obama related page?
I hope this is the right venue for this question. (Please advise!)

I have a request for clarification with regard to Obama article probation and the Gatesgate/"beer summit" article (more properly the Henry Louis Gates arrest incident); for example, specifically, Are discussions about the White House get together with officer Gates, Obama's friend Professor Gates and the president subject to its strictures? (We are also in the midst of a discussing of this matter on our talkpage here: Talk:Henry Louis Gates arrest incident.)

Note that I'd especially be interested in hearing input from admins and editors with experience with Obama article probation issues, however anyone's opinion will be appreciated. Thanks. (Oh and furthermore there very recently was a thread on ani/3r concerning the incessant edit warring that has been going on on the page with regard to what phrase to use to refer to the White House meeting between Gates, Crowly, and the president; this edit warring has spilled over into the article's talkpage, filling it up somewhat with discussions of editor conduct rather than strictly concerning issues about article content.) ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  14:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is someone seriously questioning whether the article on the meeting between Obama's friend, Obama, and a cop Obama insulted, related to Obama? I'm gonna have to go with "YES". I would think it was painfully obvious that meetings involving a person were involving that person, but maybe I'm wrong. Padillah (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a ruling on it recently, and the answer was, "Yes, it is Obama-related," and hence it falls under the arbcom decisions on Obama-related pages. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction - That was ca. July 28th, and there was no definitive ruling. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the question is badly phrased. Justmeheremow placed the article on Article Probation, and was reversed.  I would imagine that if the outcome of this discussion is to say the article is Obama-related, he will do so again.  That is the wrong question.  The question is, should this article be placed on article probation?  That should be faced squarely, not gotten in through the back door.  Not all Obama related articles are on article probation, you know--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll rephrase the question. Thanks, Wehwalt. ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  14:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest that you do it under a new heading and close this topic to avoid confusion.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. :^) ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  15:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think hiding it and continuing in place is better. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 15:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thread poster objected, so unhidden and split. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 15:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Should Henry Louis Gates arrest incident be on article probation?
With regard Obama article probation and the Gatesgate/"beer summit" article (more properly the Henry Louis Gates arrest incident) -- for example, Shouldn't discussions about the White House get together with officer Gates, Obama's friend Professor Gates and the president subject to its strictures? We are in the midst of a discussing of this matter on our talkpage here: Talk:Henry Louis Gates arrest incident.

Note that I'd especially be interested in hearing input from admins and editors with experience with Obama article probation issues, however anyone's opinion will be appreciated. Thanks. (Also there very recently was a thread on ani/3r concerning the incessant edit warring that has been going on on the page with regard to what phrase to use to refer to the White House meeting between Gates, Crowly, and the president; this edit warring has spilled over into the article's talkpage, filling it up somewhat with discussions of editor conduct rather than strictly concerning issues about article content.) ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  15:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, I removed the probation tag because it was placed by a non-administrator. A probation tag should be placed by someone willing to enforce it, imo. I'm not too familiar with this though, so no prejudice to someone putting it back if that is faulty reasoning and/or an administrator steps forward to oversee the page. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 14:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The probation is for Obama-related articles "broadly construed". The only reason anyone cares about this incident is because President Obama spoke about it at his press conference.  So I would say yes, the probation should definitely apply.  (This is without looking at the talk page to see what the particular issue is.)  But in general, it should apply. --B (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What? This was big news before Obama stuck his oar in.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was on the news, but it wasn't a full media circus. The Q&A at the press conference took it from being an "oh and by the way" news item to the lead item on every broadcast.  Obama is an integral part of the story. --B (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've monitored the page since near the beginning and weighed in now and then. I don't think there's anything on the page that normal measures can't handle.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As B points out and as noted here, under the terms of the community-imposed measures to deal with Obama articles, "Pages related to Barack Obama (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms of article probation." In my view at least this is not particularly up to debate&mdash;the Gates affair is clearly Obama-related if we construe that phrase broadly, even though it would still have been a major issue had Obama not become so directly involved.


 * Ultimately putting this article on probation is not that big of a deal. It simply allows admins more latitude to deal with problems if they come up, and forces editors there to be more careful about civility and edit warring, which is not a bad thing and could actually prevent problems. If there are no real problems on the page right now (I have not checked), then admin enforcement won't really be needed, and the fact that the article is "on probation" won't really matter. If problems arise then it will be easier to deal with them. To my mind at least, it's best to avoid picking and choosing what articles are on probation or not and simply take "broadly construed" at face value. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The probation puts editors in some pretty tight handcuffs. What about applying it only to the (so-called) "beer summit" section? –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 15:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Striking portion. I thought this was one of those tighter restrictions with 1RR across the board and the like. The handcuffs aren't that tight. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk  15:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be worried about that causing too much wikilawyering. It really needs to be all or nothing. --B (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, anything is up for discussion. The fact that the community has placed all Obama-related articles on probation can be revisited at any time.  But under the current rule, as it exists, the article is on probation and it's not really an arguable point.  If the community wants to make an exception for it or change the rule, that, of course, is an option.  Also, Xeno makes a very good point that unless one or more admins care about it enough to enforce the probation (which I can't commit to regularly monitoring), it's rather moot. --B (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think we're revisiting the topic of Obama article probation here, though of course we could. And obviously we need admins to do the enforcing should that become necessary. But whether an admin is watching the page now is not really relevant. If the article is on probation, and I think it should be obviously, and then if problems come up and no admin is there helping out, an editor working on the page could post a note here on ANI saying, "trouble at Henry Louis Gates arrest incident, could an admin come over and help enforce Obama article probation." I think we're making this a bit more difficult than we need to. I don't think being on probation is that big of a deal (I would disagree that it "puts editors in some pretty tight handcuffs"&mdash;if you don't edit war or behave in an uncivil fashion, which you should not be doing anyway, you have no problems, and anyway you would always be warned first if there was a problem) or that it will hurt article work in some way. If it's not needed, great, but if a mess erupts over there it's clear at the outset that administrators can handle the problems under the terms of the Obama probation, and the very fact that the rules are a bit tighter could help prevent problems before they arise. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, by that logic, it would be cool to apply the terms project wide.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm game! :^) (seriously) ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  20:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Commment - there is no requirement for prior consensus, or administrator approval, before adding Obama article probation notices to pages. I disagree that there are any "handcuffs" associated with being on probation - it just requires good behavior of the sort that editors should be showing anywhere.  However, if there is a consensus against a page being on probation, or if the probation just doesn't fit the page, it shouldn't apply.  Despite the "broadly construed" language, Obama probation has so far been applied only to specific pages that are mainly about Obama (or his administration, family, career, books by or about him, etc) - it has not been applied to articles about other people and things that happen to contain sections and topics relating to Obama.  That would argue against applying probation to the Gates page.  We may want to consider that because the problems (the same editors and the same problems) tend to go from one page to another, so it might make more sense as a topic probation than article probation.  I would favor that but I think it's something we ought to discuss first.  Wikidemon (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there any other articles that are analogous to this one in terms of Obama's relationship to the subject that are not considered to be on probation? --B (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, no. The probation tag has only been applied to half a dozen articles or so, and they were all directly related to Obama.  There are probably some other pages generally assumed to fall under probation but without a tag - again, very closely related.  Wikidemon (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there are any number of articles which probably could/should be considered Obama-related but are not tagged. I'm guessing the only articles tagged are the most obvious ones, like Presidency of Barack Obama, and perhaps some where particular problems have cropped up. I don't think we need to go through and systematically tag every Obama-related article (and obviously an article is not officially "under probation" until it is tagged), but if someone, as is happening here, thinks an article should be under probation and if on the face it is Obama-related, then let's go ahead and put it on probation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In a sort of procedural question, Shouldn't we try to discuss whether the article is already on probation in the 1st part of this discussion, only concentrating on whether it should be, in this secondary part? Unless both issues will likely become intermingled in any case. In fact -- Never mind....
 * Come to think of it, the whole question is resolved, since BigTimePeace is the premiere admin with concern Obama related pages' probation and obviously doesn't mind if this page is added. Anyone agree with my assessment that therefore this is a done deal, or are there related issues, ramifications, procedural issues and whatnot and so on that will still need to be worked out? In other words, should I put the notice back up on the article's talkpage or not?


 * From what I understand the operation of the probation, there's really nothing officially much different than normal, it's just that editing behavioral guidelines are simply watched more stringently, am I right? For example, with regard to edit warring, taunting, etc., we'd tend to template a drive-by contributor who threadjacks with a personal comment or does a 2nd revert (which is already assuming bad faith or edit warring, technically, but can now be stringently enforced on such a page) with an extremely polite warning telling them there's zero bad behavoir allowed on the page, under probation (with no indulgences granted to long-time editors believing themselves "just protecting the page," so as not to allow unfairness issues to arise). And instead of clogging up the page with inter-editor issues, these can be relegated to user talkpages or to "Obama articles probation" subpages, right? ↜Just  M &thinsp;E  here&#8202;,&#8202;now  16:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any necessity to probation the article, there is nothing going on there that shows me that it needs extra control. Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For me, the compelling evidence about what gets covered by the Obama restrictions are the actions of the editors at those articles. Once an article starts to receive the same sorts of wacky conspiracy theorists and revisionists that led to the restrictions in the first place, that's when the restrictions appear.  Insofar as the articles in question have not become targets, then I see no reason to extend the probabtion.  However, the sorts of editors who the probation targets have a long history of testing the boundaries of the probation by finding new and increasingly esoteric articles in which to push their agenda.  Insofar as these articles have not become a target, then they are not covered by the probation.  However, this is not a permanent state; the probation extends to any article which displays the sort of problems that led to the probation as soon as the problems arise.  -- Jayron  32  19:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a very reasonable answer/policy. --B (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jayron has hit it square on the head. Editors who are restricted in some way from editing certain specific articles may try to get around it by slipping POV-pushing material into articles that are not technically on that list. Behavior is the issue, not necessarily a chiseled list of specific articles. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: Gwen Gale gave me her permission to move her thoughts (below) from her talkpage to here."Hey. I don't think my input's needed in that thread, it's ok to put the Gates arrest topic under that probation though, since even if most of the sources on that messy tale are indeed flawed or worse, edit warring and gnashing of teeth won't help readers nearly so much as letting the sources stumble on their own. As for slow edit warring, anyone doing it should be warned (and blocked if they don't stop, quick), 3rr is only a bright line, not the rule. Is there a lone editor in a back and forth with a small flock holding another PoV? They're all edit warring, which isn't allowed, even if the flock thinks they're 'a helpful content patrol.' Is the lone editor breaking any other policies? Is that editor single purpose or experienced in many topics? Are the sources independent and verifiable? Readers aren't helped by political articles which snuff out published PoVs on a topic and moreover, editors should be wary about giving the narrative voice to published PoVs of any kind in a political article. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)" ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  02:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Gates Mug shot and arrest pictures, in or out.
There has been a lot of discussion over these pictures in or out, an editor has started a head count of opinions at the [| Gates talkpage] This is an important decision for the Wikipedia, please come there and leave your opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 1:35 am, Today (UTC+1)
 * I don't know about the mugshot, but the photo of him exiting his house is a blatant copyright violation. 64.252.32.149 (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat
. And take a look at that editor's edits. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fairly civil, he didn't threaten to break the other guy's legs with a lead pipe.Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, most legal threats don't involve leg breaking. I fail to see your point. Anyway, this was a pretty veiled threat, if it even was one. I don't know if any action is required.--Atlan (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How veiled is I won't see to it that you are indic[a]ted for Obstruction of Justice? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) It's also a few days old. Looking at the IP's edits, I'm guessing he has a fair amount of tinfoil on the grocery bill, so perhaps best ignored for the moment? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The threat is a few days old, but the user continues to edit up to and including today, and has not retracted the threat. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems loony tunes and harmless. If you really want the ip blocked for a while, then I guess we can, but I would just as soon not do anything. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I agree that single sentence is not veiled at all, but in context I thought it was pretty meaningless, based on assumptions like Tommy being employed by the government. Whatever the case, I just can't really take this seriously.--Atlan (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

← (edit conflict) Public encyclopedia? Somebody better set this IP's mind straight and fast. MuZemike 22:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP seems to be the same as FYI. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This person does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. We have in the past used admin discretion with moderately disruptive users who are here for other purposes, and indef'ed them.
 * If anyone feels that he may be able to contribute the the encyclopedia I am open to moderation, but I don't see any sign of productive contributions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

While he and PrimeHunter were having a conversation on PH's talk page, I figured his continued presence was none of my business. But now that he is disrupting yet another page: Help desk, I think it's time to see the writing on the wall and end our relationship. I don't think this person's goals are compatible with Wikipedia's goals; see this diff:, where he says: "I will be entirely honest with you. Much as I admire the work of Wiki and use it everyday, I am not here to post anything on Wiki. I am here to smoke out people from the US Justice Department and its associated entities who are attempting to control the global public data footprint of people they have indicted.". I think it's time to indef block the user, and block the IP for a reasonable amount of time. We all know he's gonna get blocked eventually, I'd suggest ripping the bandaid off quickly and doing it now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ashley Greene
Pictures of Ms. Greene without clothing apparently found their way to the Internet. A reasonably large number of mostly logged-out Wikipedians are adding that information to her article, often phrased, shall we say, informally. I think the page needs more eyeballs, and maybe encouraging people to discuss, in a rational way, how to discuss the existence of the pictures (if it's necessary to include in the article at all). As it stands, some of the revisions that briefly made it in raise BLP issues approaching the level of libel. -- Pakaran 02:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was just added with a reliable source and a neutral tone. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have BLP concerns and some of the edits were very problematic. I have 24 hr full protected the article - if consensus on the article talk page and here is that inclusion is OK any administrator can unprotect and add it, but please do not do so without consensus.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So what? The point of of Wikipedia is that anyone can continuously improve the information. Elitists like you are ruining Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.240.85 (talk) 08:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Only in American would so much be made of something so unimportant. No wonder Europeans think Americans are idiots. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's completely uncalled for, Bugs. It's an insult to a huge number of our readers and editors. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm an American, ya silly. I wear the red white and blue proudly. But our obsession with stupid stuff like this makes us look... stupid. Puritanical. Whatever term you want to use. In reference to this article, unless this trivial revelation turns out to have some kind of career impact, its inclusion in the article is way undue weight. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As a European, I take issue with such a generalizing comment. I don't see how being an American makes it okay to say Europeans think Americans are stupid.--Atlan (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going by what some of my European colleagues have said. Maybe they are not representative. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing, there's no such thing as "European" when it comes to opinions.--Atlan (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * B-but, you're unionized and everything! 718smiley.png &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding songs to dab pages
79.167.116.223 is adding a lot of songs without pages belonging to albums with pages to a lot of disambig pages. I don't know if this is OK, I'm not about to intervene without some guidance. I can't figure out what policy is on this. Pseudomonas(talk) 12:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

ETA: on their talk page, looks like they plan to add all songs from all albums. That's quite a lot of clutter. Pseudomonas(talk) 13:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a weird project, but it is standard to include songs on disambig pages, and to link to the album if there's no article for the song itself. At a glance at some of the recent edits it looks like the user is correctly formatting the entries in accordance with the MOS, so I'm not sure there's any problem. Propaniac (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Doubtful if any of these would ever become articles, as most non-single songs are non-notable, but I suppose if one heard a song called "Twilight" somewhere but not the band name, they would search here and wind up at Twilight_(disambiguation). Tarc (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I figure it'll wind up totalling maybe 500k-1M additions to disambig pages, mainly those for common words. Pseudomonas(talk) 13:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * At that size, with an ambitious 1,000 edits per day this is a several-year project. I doubt anyone has that kind of patience, and automated tools could be a problem if that were the method.  A half-finished project to add all the songs would definitely be clunky.  I'm not sure this is an "incident" requiring administrative attention, but perhaps a questionable idea requiring discussion.  Disambiguation pages are supposed to be useful navigational features leading readers to the information they seek, not an index to all knowledge.  I don't think this one (a song that hit #24 on the R&B charts in 1987) is a helpful addition.  Clutter is bad here.  On the other hand, there is a lot of good that could be done if a project like this is undertaken carefully.   Is there a good place to get community consensus on the matter, perhaps a wikiproject?  Wikidemon (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess the Village pump might be a plan; I didn't know whether it's OK to put someone else's proposal there. Pseudomonas(talk) 13:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:MOSDAB is a better place. Taemyr (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC) A few things: 1. I don't think the user actually is intending to add every song on every album; if that were the intent, I agree it would be extremely unlikely to achieve such. 2. If the user were trying to do so, but stopped halfway through, I don't think it would be that "clunky"; it's very common for disambig pages to list one or more songs (based on whichever ones a user has gotten around to listing there), so I think the effect would be that a lot of those pages would list some more songs than they did previously, and that's it. It's not as if there are only a hundred possible song titles and each one is now going to become a dab page with seven thousand songs listed on it. 3. As I said above, as long as I've been working on dab pages, it's been standard to include non-notable songs, linking to the album or artist article as appropriate. Banning non-notable songs from dab pages would be a major change (and one that I don't see the need for). There is a WikiProject at WikiProject Disambiguation that may be the best place to discuss such a proposal (dab discussion also takes place at the Talk pages for MOS:DP and WP:DAB.) Propaniac (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the latter pages is probably better than the WikiProject; it's a longtime inconvenience that dab discussion inevitably gets spread out over all three pages. Propaniac (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I was thinking that if the project were abandoned halfway through we would have very good navigation for songs beginning with A through N, or every song until 1988 :). Sometimes mass edits create their own systemic problems that aren't always apparent by looking at the permissibility of the edits if done one at a time.  Think of the geo-coding, the place name bots, the Country1-Country2 international relations article discussions...  Non-notable songs might be such a case.    Wikidemon (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * True; I simply don't foresee that happening here, especially since I think this user is working manually and not with a bot. (Also, I think they're picking albums in no apparent order and doing all the songs on that album, so I don't think it would create an obvious "imbalance" issue on the dab pages.) Still, if further discussion of how to handle songs on dab pages is necessary, the Talk page for one of the dab guidelines linked above would probably be the best venue. Propaniac (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, everyone and thank you, Propaniac, for making me aware of this discussion. I would like to point out the following (as I already have to Pseudomonas): (A) I haven't created independent articles for any of these songs, which is a specifically "not-to-do" point; (B) I have been redirecting songs that don't appear as individual entries to other relevant articles; (C) This is not a "project" of any kind, I just thought these additions would be useful to usera. I certainly don't intend to add "all songs" and I would be glad to produce a list of songs I haven't been adding; (D) In my humble opinion, an encyclopaedia is, above all, a reference work, I think it goes without saying that it needs to include every possible cross-reference between articles, for reasons of user-friendliness (an example of this was kindly provided above by Tarc); (D) Despite all these, these, no clear-cut criteria really exist on which work of music is more important than which; (E) As far as albums are concerned, I have certainly not included any demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums, as advised. I sincerely hope that the Wikipedia community can see the relevance on such additions. Thank you all for your time and comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.116.223 (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Kilkock
User has consistently made unconstructive edits to various articles (primarily Chile) and refuses to participate in discussion. Furthermore, upon my last request, Anonymous IP filled my talk page with obscenities claiming he had made a single constructive edit and therefore couldn't be blocked? I don't know how to link to my talk page history. Thanks. Also, I'm not sure how checkuser works, but alot of the edits/vandalism on Chile seem to be similar... Cmiych (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted the revision with the obscenities in the edit summary on Cmiych's talk page, but didn't review for further action. Anyone else?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an older account with few edits...and all the edits show the same proclivity toward very subtle changes in fact. No original contribs, no talk page messages, just random fact changes. I've blocked him for a week to get his attention. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk: 2009
There's an ongoing dispute about whether 2 wrestlers should be included in the deaths section. is using WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons for no inclusion. <font color="Green"> Jordan Payne  <font color="DarkBlue">T <font color="DarkBlue">/C  17:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When drawing attention from a central venue to an ongoing discussion, it's usually appropriate to word it neutrally. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 17:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong venue. This is a content dispute. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Various articles edited by IP 24.229.244.235

We've been dealing with gross contentiousness, 3RR, editing while blocked, vandalism, you name it, from this editor. In realizing this was a young person, I tried to be helpful while the IP was blocked, even after discovering a username had been registered in order to violated a block placed on July 21. Block log is here When I was looking at issues related to edits made today after the IP returned, I discovered that another IP, 24.229.233.239, traceroutes to the same location and had been blocked, finally for 3 months, on June 21. In just looking at the posting style and patterns, as well as the articles edited, this is unquestionably the same editor, avoiding a fairly long term block, again. See User talk:24.229.244.235 and User talk:24.229.233.239. To expand upon WP:DUCK, when it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and calls itself Donald, it's the same duck. Could this be dealt with here please? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could I at least get a response here, please? Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Rodhull  andemu  19:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR board blanking
Are editors allowed to blank notices on this board ? I may have overstepped by using rollback to revert, and if so I apologize. Thanks  Tide  rolls  05:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If they want the report against them attended to faster, then yes. --  tariq abjotu  05:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like standard vandalism from the user blanking it. Good use of rollback, good call. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 05:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That being the case I'll stay out of the way next time and let nature take its course. Thanks  Tide  rolls  05:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, Homer. I didn't see your post while typing the above.  Tide  rolls  05:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem :) Just a note, the editor who was doing the blanking on 3RR was blocked for 36 hours for 3RR violations. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 05:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Somehow, 33 hours would have a better ring to it. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or maybe 3.3 fortnights? -- Deville (Talk) 14:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have 3.3 fortnights, am I bid 3 months? Going once, going twice...yes, that's right, going 3 times... KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As tends to happen, vandalizing/blanking central noticeboards tends to get attention of exactly the sort the person blanking was probably hoping to avoid. – <font color="#28f">Luna Santin (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry/COI on Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Roger_Currie
could someone look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Roger_Currie and tell me what is going on. there are multiple SPAs that came out of nowhere to not vote. Theserialcomma (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tagged with Not a ballot. We'll see if that helps. — Satori Son 20:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh jesus, a "seduction community" AFD. *digs hole, crawls in, pulls dirt back over* Tony Fox (arf!) 20:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the canvassing is here. Ugh. — Satori Son 20:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Irano-Afghan
Admin/user Kwamikagami is misusing his admin respons. please feel free to study below dispute between user and admin and then please rev. Irano Afghan page to prev detailed version vers which is this one He insist he will remove anything I write. I will add those lines he did erase, as well as he is reverting to versions which sockpuppets (see below) edited on and revert to?!? Also study the discussion page where he says I have to convince, which I did, All I ask is for reverting version which majority as well as PHD doc. editors have edited on.

lines removed: If you see disc. page read above, this is exc. what I have been doing, dont divert so to have an excuse not rev. to det. vers. there were a max. of 3-4 unexp. non read on issue ed. whom is altered by.. I did convince them since I presented all scholary work and got no resp. whats your next a/void. comment, "go to disc page and convince again"? High! (user Cyrus111)it also seem I have to bring in other admins myself since you wont do your job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.29.165 (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

and:

Nah, things dont really work that way around, it seems you are misusing, confusing your given resp. link me your superior please] (cyrus111) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.29.165 (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I´ll place them further down where he removed them:

"dispute"

Obviously you have no respect for Westerners since you insist on deleting a modernised version which were edited on by PHD doctorates Americans and Iranians, Its intresting the expansion of the article is such a major factor for you while I keep the old version and add and edit with books in front of me from Coon, Gimbutas etc so their work should be limited to what you feel should be in the art? Whats the real issue here? Its no wonder 2/3:s of Americans think bombing of the East is justified after all the tech. yall copied from the West then disresp! I spent 2 hours with my Indian friends trying to Improve and advance the article but you rev. to a version which looks like it came from a book from the 1700 hundreds. While my version keeps all your edits and ads new! The tomography image is my own head! the 2 type Nor image is my own head, why dont you add new info instead of deleting 90% of the art.? Can you explain the reason for this? this image as admin you should help me correct it finding the right copyright!Thats your job as admin! You didnt even bother to debate me on the issue even though you lied about an edit you did. Here is what you will do! you will bring this up to power admins,(several) Americans alike then present all the disc, then explain to them why you insist on deleting modernised versions, scholars work and editors with PHD:s, and why this version is better and more justified than this  And second why A German term should be used in an Irano-Afghan (Am vers. section art. Coon is princiality here), If you are intrested in editing on Anthropology please feel free to do so for East Asians or Mongoloid race (here is a start for you ) which occupy about half this planets population while I edit on cordeds-nordics and Irano-Afghan which ocupy 0.something % of world population and could almost be considered an extinct species". You are welcome to edit anywhere but please do not erase months of work after you just bash in, and then have the nerve to block me for wanting to keep more det. newer vers.!?! I will rev. to more modern more educational more detailed version while keeping your and other young peoples pref. version! Until you will get me several American admins who think that your vers. should stay and my vers. is false, (my vers. present all the scholars work) as well as them American. admins have to explain why they would del. a vers which a PHD:doc have edited on.Cyrus111 (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.38.3.208 (talk)


 * Yes, I must be Anti-White if I don't buy your racist ideology. As I've said before, this kind of pseudo-Nazi bullshit from the 1930s is no excuse for an encyclopedia article—unless we present it as racist bullshit from the 1930s. You haven't even noticed that what I'm reverting to is not "my" version—AFAIK I've had no hand in crafting it. You are also engaging in fraud with the images you post—not that I'm surprised. Sorry, but you need to convince the other editors on the discussion page. If they accept your edits, so will I. Meanwhile, I will erase everything you do. If you don't like it, go to arbitration. kwami (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no racism or pseudo-Nazi BS as you call or personal racism ideology, My version is scientific research up to the present day! Duda et al, lawrence Lunberg, Gimbutas Sharifi, Tehrani etc, you have 50:s 70:s 90:s up until present days, and yes Coon who wrote ex. on this issue as well as his theories today are being confirmed! and there are tons more out there. It seems you fail you reflect on your percep. which makes you think its racism. If so point this out, Its funny half the world ids being linked and still you use this as your argument. If you feel this way then point out in the presentation, presented what you feel is racism as well as the art.being strictly from scholary sources. I dont even know what racism is in the way you seem to indicate which is an insult as well. You narrow the whole art. into ---pseudo-Nazi bullshit from the 1930s--- and ignoring all work, all sources, just read them! Its not my work! Its theirs ! Presented here! You had no craft in it yes, but others have, other that were educated, and many other editors during months! while more younger editors about 4 of them is altered by bias my friend with no backing of whatsoever, it seems you fail to understand this. And then you stand behind these while ignoring others with ed. and many many others who ed. on det. vers.!? It has nothing to do with convincing those youths since sources do it perfectly, if you see disc page I presented all works etc when dis. them, while those who insist on rev it presented nothing!?So dont sorry yourself here, and whom do I have to convince?If anything you have to convince me and those other editors why you rev to poor vers. liked by a minority young editors! Majority have accepted detailed edited version. Also I asked for your help on the images rather than accusing and insulting --do your job as admin-- and help me correct the copyright, as well as some images were personally created and released PD (being my own head and all!) them you did wrong on. Here is what you will do, you will present our disc. disc. page disc. and them 2 vers. to admins and others who like to be involved and convince them why keeping a poor undet. vers. approved by a few kids is more justf. than the vers. which majority editors and educated. people approved and edited on. 194.14.94.1 (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC) (User Cyrus111
 * Take it up on the talk page, not here. As I said before, if the other editors accept your edits, so will I. kwami (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all you blocked me! Second your arg. dont hold water since above arg. from me perf. explains the reasons, also just because some go to disc with no arg and also insults and with no pres. and then rev page with a click of a button, dont mean they are right and that we have to keep poor vers. because of this. You can not base art on this arg. It retards the art. I`ll ask your service as admin. to bring others more exp. involved on this issue, do your job! (User Cyrus111) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.14.94.1 (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are others more experienced on the issue, but of course you won't accept them because they don't agree with you. Meanwhile do your job and present your argument in a convincing manner. kwami (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Presenting and arguing in a "convincing manner" as you put it is exact. what I am doing here, while you block and avoid. I will accept if valid points are shown. It seems you try to avoid the issue and instead divert attention, if you read above I made my case clearly if there are more experience on the issue then where are they? they will then disc. on the disc. page which over there I cant see any, others that were debating presented no sources or valid arg. but insults and threats. Valid arg. and pres of sources I did indeed. Also bring these more exp. of yours which you for some reason claim I wont accept? to disc page then they will debate me, if not you must rev. to det. version which a majority have edited on for month and not vers a few with no arg. insists on keeping. I have already deb and disc. a valid point, them haven´t you also seem to avoid to bring in more unbiased admins on this which I asked sev. times, let them point out why present version is more just. than last version via reason. arg. sources and deb. I will, like you said, bring this case to Disc. page and deb. disc. via facts etc. If a no show. from "exp." and a "no show" via reas. deb. fact. etc. from editors, then your job is to rev. to prev. more det. ver. via rights of maj. of eds. and conv. arg. pres. via sources, old and new. Unfort. you blocked me for deb. and disc. and keeping det. vers. You might want to unblock if you want me to take this to disc. page... (User Cyrus111) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.29.165 (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are literate, aren't you? What part of "you need to convince the other editors on the discussion page" didn't you understand? kwami (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

removed line:

If you see disc. page read above, this is exc. what I have been doing, dont divert so to have an excuse not rev. to det. vers. there were a max. of 3-4 unexp. non read on issue ed. whom is altered by.. I did convince them since I presented all scholary work and got no resp. whats your next a/void. comment, "go to disc page and convince again"? High! (user Cyrus111)it also seem I have to bring in other admins myself since you wont do your job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.29.165 (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You apparently aren't literate, or at least are not cooperative, since you continue to post your argument on my talk page instead of the discussion page of the article. I'm also not going to bother deciphering your telescopic orthography, which becomes less legible the more you write, and will simply revert you from now on. kwami (talk)

removed line:

Nah, things dont really work that way around, it seems you are misusing, confusing your given resp. link me your superior please (cyrus111) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.29.165 (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh by the way, here is the one of the editor I am to convince and the editor whom you change last version to, thanx... (User Cyrus111) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.29.165 (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

--

Please see to this so correct article can be restored. Thanks! (user cyrus111) (blocked...)


 * This should be an illustration on any "tl;dr" page. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  20:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cyrus, blocked means blocked, meaning you are not supposed to be editing while you're blocked. That means you cannot evade it by using IPs.
 * Can an admin please block this IP stat for block evasion? MuZemike 21:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and reset/extend the block on User:Cyrus111, as well? MuZemike 21:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done and done. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  21:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for admin input
Hi. User talk:Cirt suggested that I contact you about an issue I posted on his talk page. I am not entirely certain what the right course of action is but the article about the upcoming Bollywood film, My Name Is Khan has been the subject of new user abuse on and off throughout its history. Particularly over the past few days. I think Cirt suggested ANI because at this point I'm not certain what the right course of action is - to ask for page protection or simply to have an admin. watch the page. I am trying to take a wikibreak for a few weeks and have been watching just this article to undo vandalism but it would be nice to have someone else watching it as well. The film promises to be a big hit in India at least and its producers have signed a contract with FOX for worldwide release when it comes out. I think that it is thus an article which should at least have a few editors monitoring it. Whether or not it requires protection at this point is a decision I'll leave to your discretion. Thank you, -Classicfilms (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

user:Jclemens
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing: B said it well. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Orly Taitz was nominated for deletion on July 31; when it was closed prematurely by user:Blueboy96 on July 31st, it was taken to deletion review (see Deletion review/Log/2009 July 31). There was no consensus to overturn at DRV; on August 8th, the closing admin at DRV, user:King of Hearts, considered the other two possibilities (endorse or relist), concluding that consensus supported relisting rather than endorse.

King of Hearts reopened and relisted the AFD, but it was closed again mere hours later by user:Jclemens. When this was brought to his attention on his takl page, Clemens claimed that he didn't realize that he was closing a relisting that resulted from a DRV consensus to do so. But he refused to correct the error by reopening the AFD, and when pushed on the point, claimed that WP:SNOW supports his action. Clearly not: both myself and user:King of Hearts have made clear that Clemens' "early closure was highly inappropriate" and that the AFD "should not have been closed and should have run the 7 days", and Clemens himself has admitted that he "made an oversight in the process." That takes SNOW off the table, since it underlines that "[i]f an issue is 'snowballed', and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause."

What's more, Clemens has admitted to a COI: he concedes that the early close was inappropriate, and that he closed the AFD early with a keep that reflects his personal opinion as to the notability question at issue. This is hard to square with WP:Administrators' warning against admins using their position to advance the side of a debate they support. He was not a "reasonably neutral party," in the argot of that policy, reviewing the debate impartially, but a participant. In effect, he attempted to unilaterally transform the DRV result from relist to overturn, using his position as an admin to close a debate as keep because he was persuaded that the keep position was correct.

As I said above, Clemens refused to accept DRV's relist mandate, so I have enforced that mandate by manually renominating the article. The immediate problem has therefore been dealt with, but we're still left with Clemens' acknowledgment of error but refusal to correct it. (To be clear, it is the refusal to correct an error brought to his attention that I wish to focus attention on, not his mistake in closing the AFD prematurely.) I wasn't sure where to bring this, but KofH suggested ANI, and WP:GBU says the same. We are told that administrators are accountable: what can be done?<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to look at the discussion and filter Simon Dodd's shrill accusations through a large grain of salt. He has repeatedly made accusations of bad faith, and failed to articulate any argument that the outcome was wrong--even when informed that a "reasonable objection" required objection to the outcome, rather than the process.  My transparency in that process has been twisted and used against me.  My detailed rationale for closing has been falsely construed as a COI. I think an appropriate admonishment for Dodd is in order, for treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:BURO.
 * As far as the deletion discussion itself goes, more reliable sources publish articles about Taitz as a person every day, such as this one. Jclemens (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's two lies in one sentence. First, I have repeatedly explained to you why the outcome was wrong: that you disagree with those arguments don't mean that they weren't offered. Second, I accused you of acting in bad faith once (not repeatedly), and did so after a lengthy discussion in which you repeatedly acknowledged that you had made a mistake and yet refused to correct it. That is not a violation of WP:AGF, see User:KillerChihuahua. The bottom line here is that you made a mistake (I take you at your word that it was accidentally and in good faith, and that's fair enough - mistakes happen), failed to correct that mistake when it was brought to your attention (which was inappropriate), and then refused to correct it when asked (which was wholly inappropriate, and has led to unnecessary chaos, see ). Finally, your clami that Taitz becomes more notable by the day makes your refusal to let the AFD run per the DRV conensus all the more baffling: if you are correct, the case to keep will be stronger in seven days than it is now! <font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no point in responding to any post that accuses me of lying. If you'd like to refactor your post and be civil about it, feel free. Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I took a quick look (having no opinion on the article subject), and it seems a pretty sure bet this article is going to be kept. Jclemens appears to have called this one correctly, even if a rigid adherence to procedure would have allowed Jclemens to step back and allow a pointless AfD to take place. IronDuke 00:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly recommend leaving the current nomination open and not speedy anythinging it. Jclemsens' action was clearly inappropriate, but I'm not convinced that any corrective remedy is needed there. The better option is to just let this AFD proceed and for the closing admin to discount any "procedural" !votes in his or her closure. --B (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Iron, "it seems a pretty sure bet this article is going to be kept. Jclemens appears to have called this one correctly, even if a rigid adherence to procedure would have allowed Jclemens to step back and allow a pointless AfD to take place" cheers. Ikip (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A snow close is appropriate where an admin (or a non-admin, occasionally) has reason to believe that extending the AfD will have 0 chance of impacting the outcome. In order for us to come down hard on jclemens for closing this AfD we first have to say with a straight face that the AfD would have been closed as delete had it been left open.  I'm not sure where the 'reasonable objection' clause for a snow close comes in.  I'm sure plenty of people reasonably hold the believe that wikipedia's inclusion criteria would allow us to delete (or merge/smerge) Orly Taitz's article.  I'm among them.  But I'm in a tiny minority.  We have seen this movie before with Joe the Plumber and a dozen other flash in the pan political celebrities.  By the time we decide that BLP1E applies (and some argument can be made either way), there is so much news coverage on the subject that it seems absurd to delete the article.  Short circuiting a pointless debate on the topic is not something that should be punished. Protonk (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's an opposite side to this coin, however. And this is an example of it in action yet again.  Speedy closures of good faith discussions usually make situations worse, not better.  There are also plenty of examples of "flash in the pan celebrities" where we have in the end concluded that a biographical article is not warranted.  It is not a good idea to adopt, as you appear to be implying, a general principle of "celebrity right now &rArr; early close as keep", because it's simply not the case. Haste is often a fault, not a virtue, in these cases.  Look what we have now: A whole load of disgruntled editors (comprising those disgruntled by the early closure and those disgruntled by having to re-open discussion yet again), three AFD discussions, a DRV discussion, lengthy threads on two administrators' user talk pages, and two AN/I discussions (this one and that one).  Most of that was avoidable by (a) not closing the discussion the first time after 5 days instead of 7, and (b) not re-closing the post-Deletion Review re-opening of the discussion after less than 1 day.  The original AFD discussion, left to run its full course properly, and even allowing for a whole second week's re-listing (following new information), would have been over, with nowhere near as much ill-feeling generated, by now. There is a proverb, "more haste, less speed".  There is wisdom to be gained from it. Uncle G (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any good faith assertion that this was one of those closes? I acknowledge the possibility in the abstract, but this critique, like others, I made the call that it was not a reasonable outcome.  To this point, I've yet to see anyone disagree with me, even User:Simon Dodd, whose complaints continue to ignore WP:BURO by focusing on process rather than outcome. No one has come to me and said "Hey, that was going to be a keep" (or even a no consensus) aside from your close. The landslide !voting in the 3rd AfD demonstrates the correctness of the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is another demonstrable lie. For you to claim that "[n]o one has come to [you] and said 'Hey, that was going to be a keep' (or even a no consensus) aside from your close" is utterly false. I have repeatedly "come to [you]" and said that this could be a no consensus close: You were told twice told on your talk page yesterday (see ), I explicitly stated in my renomination that we had yet to determine if this would be a keep or a no consensus close (see Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (3rd nomination)), and I've made the same argument right here in this ANI thread (see dif, or infra at 13:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)). Are you really going to claim that you missed all those comments where someone came to you to say that this could be a no-consensus close, despite the fact that you replied to all but the last one? Really? <font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refactor your personal attack, and I'll subsequently respond appropriately to the substance of your comment. Jclemens (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Protonk, I find it puzzling that both you and Clemens seem to believe that the only two outcomes available for an AFD are delete or keep. It is not true that "In order for us to come down hard on jclemens for closing this AfD we first have to say with a straight face that the AfD would have been closed as delete had it been left open"; we have only to recognize that there is a reasonable possibility that a no consensus close would have resulted. That was certainly possible, and was in fact the most likely outcome. There is a big difference between that and a keep decision, and that's why this is still a live issue.


 * In any event, it's the early close and then refusal to remedy the mistake that needs to be looked at, rather than the close itself (as I've said, I assume that the initial; mistake was just that: a good-faith mistake). As Uncle G explains with great force, heat melts snow; a snow close is clearly inappropriate for a contentious AFD, and this was an especially contentious AFD. All this disruption could have been avoided if not for two plainly inappropriate early closes, and the failure of the admins involved in the latter to recognize and correct his error. I resent benig put into a position by an admin where I have to take heat at the AFD for fixing his goof. This seems to be a pattern for Clemens (see the comments from other users about other incidents that you hatted below), and it's clear that he believes that he has acted appropriately. Accordingly, sanctions aganist him from the community are appropriate to disabuse him of that impression, and avoid his causing future disruption (cf. WP:BLOCK ("Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by ... encouraging change in[] a source of disruption")).<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not really puzzling. I have a different philosophy regarding snow closes than Uncle G.  for snow closes I feel strongly that the proof of the pudding is in the tasting.  It is a necessary condition that we feel the chosen snow outcome was wrong before we can begin to speak seriously about disruption and malfeasance stemming from the snow close.  Uncle G's point that snow closes engender conflict is both correct and well taken.  In many cases snow closes present as proximate causes for DRVs or AN/I posts like this one.  So we may see this thread as evidence that the snow close was rash (maybe) or premature, but that is not the same as saying that it represented an abuse of the tools or a serious lapse of judgment.  Because as sage as Uncle G's point is, all it really says is that there may be folks who would disagree with a snow close.  And that's not indicative of admin abuse or malfeasance. Protonk (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if it is "a necessary condition that we feel the chosen snow outcome was wrong before we can begin to speak seriously about disruption and malfeasance stemming from the snow close," that has been shown. We do not know whether the AFD would have resulted in a keep or a no consensus close had it been allowed to rnu the full seven days. Calling it either way is thus necessarily erroneous.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's also worth noting that the large number of people expressing frustration that the article has been renominated yet again demonstrates the disruptive effect of Clemens' premature close. If he had left the 2d nomination open as a relist, as KofH and DRV concluded it should be, or reopened it once his error was brought to his attention, this confusion and carnage would have be avoided. We should seek to avoid it recurrnig by sending two clear messages: SNOW closes are inappropriate in contentious AFDs, and when a mistake is made that will have disruptive consequences, the user should revert the mistake - or make appropriate amends - when the mistake is brought to their attention. <font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather, that your relisting, (as opposed to taking my close to DRV, as you were informed was the next step, yet explicitly declined) was a disruptive action that demonstrates that my close accurately judged consensus. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It may have accurately evaluated consensus as it then stood, but it was very inappropriate for you to make that evaluation and close the AfD when a DRV had just determined that it should be kept open the full length. Opening yet another DRV on it is not at all a good idea.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've agreed that I was in error in closing it. I have yet to see anyone try to convince me the outcome would have ever become a keep if the discussion continued.  So why are we here, again? Because one highly motivated editor thinks the remote possibility of a "no consensus" close is worth an ANI thread? Jclemens (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot understand why you keep repeating variations on this clami that no one has tried to show that the outcome would have been something other than keep when that claim has been repeatedly debunked. It was repeatedly explained to you that the AFD could result in either a keep or a no consensus close; the fact that you disagree with that view (or perhaps that you fail to grasp the significance of that distinction) is quite different to your claim that no one has explained that view to you, as you keep claiming.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for actually posing this question in a civil manner. As you yourself have repeatedly said a "no consensus" outcome is acceptable, you have personally and specifically endorsed my closure... with the exception of the name. Various deletion policies and guidelines make it abundantly clear that "no consensus" is a subset of a "keep" outcome, not a separate outcome.
 * Deletion_process "If the decision is KEEP (including any variant such as NO CONSENSUS, REDIRECT, or MERGE)"
 * Guide_to_deletion "An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep"."
 * Deletion_policy "If there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate."
 * The WP:NOCONSENSUS essay likewise categorizes no consensus deletion debates as keeps. A "no consensus" outcome doesn't permit an earlier re-nomination or convey any difference in status whatsoever. Thus, despite all the storm and fury, not one Wikipedian has advocated reversing my close, merely disputed the "no consensus" sub-category of "keep" is more appropriate than the general category. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is, once again, a lie that I have "personally and specifically endorsed my closure." As you well know, I have done no such thing. As a figleaf, you offer your own theory - a theory I have repeatedly rejected here and elsewhere - that there is no difference between a no consensus close and a keep decision. In fact, they are plenty different; that a no consensus close defaults to keeping the article because no consensus has been established to delete it doesn't vitiate the force of this point in the slightest. One is a positive decision to keep, deservnig due deference, one is a failure to decide. A no consensus keep close leaves the door open for a future nomination; a vote to keep gives a future nomination a steep hill to climb. And even if you could in good faith argue to the contrary, that is my view, you know that that is my view, and for you to claim that I have accepted your view is therefore a lie.


 * Also a lie - and worth mentioning separately - is your claim that "not one Wikipedian has advocated reversing [your] close...." To prove that this claim is a lie, I must show two things: that one or more wikipedians have advocated reversing your close, and that you knew about it. (If I could prove only the latter, that would only prove that your claim was wrong. Proving that your claim is a lie requires that I prove that you know that your statement is wrong.) I can do both. I advocated reversing your close on your talk page, here, here, and impliedly here. That proves your claim is wrong. You replied to all three of those comments, so unless we are seriously being asked to believe that you replied without reading those comments, that proves that you know your claim is wrong, and accordingly that you lied in making that claim.


 * It strikes me that if you're tired of being called a liar (as you claim to be at your separate attempt to get me sanctioned in another place, an effort that you failed to notify me of - I'll deal with that later), the way to achieve that is to quit telling lies that can easily be shown to be lies with a few diffs. Some friendly advice: you're in a hole. Quit digging.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, please be civil. You managed to post a direct question to me without being incivil. That's commendable behavior and should be encouraged. As to the rest of your arguments... "A no consensus keep close leaves the door open for a future nomination; a vote to keep gives a future nomination a steep hill to climb" may well be your notion, but begs two questions: 1) Where is this in policy, guideline... or even an essay?  I don't see it at WP:OUTCOMES.  2) Do you honestly believe a future AfD will result in her article being deleted? In case you haven't been keeping up with the ongoing reliable sourcing TIME just published a bio on her. Lastly, I find it mildly amusing that I'm supposedly the one in the hole, when another administrator closed this discussion, and you had to reopen it yourself to post. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A few more comments: "seek first to understand"--in case what I said above wasn't obvious enough, not one Wikipedian has said that the AfD at the point where I closed it had a possibility of resulting in the deletion of the article. Changing a "keep" to a "no consensus" is only a semantic change, not a reversal. Likewise, reopening an AfD is not a reversal, but a reopening. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * When the community has decided through an AFD to keep an article, that decision has force - or at least inertia. Although no policy that I know says it explicitly, the underlying community judgment that previous decisions to keep merit deference is glimpsed through many policies and practice. For example, WP:BEGIN tells us that before nominating an article for deletion, an editor should see "if there was a previous nomination, [and] check that your objections haven't already been dealt with." Similarly, an article can't be PROD'ed if it has been kept through AFD. And WP:NOTAGAIN tells us the rule through making an exception: "An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion...." None of these restrictions make sense unless they are understood to reflect the understanding mentioned above. We saw that in action in, for example, Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination), where many editors argued that the previous nominations should be conclusive. Although I argued that the previous nominations of O'Reilly lacked force because they did not address (as NOTAGAIN envisions) the merits of the nomination, but rather were closed on the basis that the nomination was in bad faith, there are many deletion discussions where I have expressly deferred to previous consensus to keep despite personal misgivings. See, e.g., Articles for deletion/Allie DiMeco (2nd nomination); Articles for deletion/Anti-globalization and antisemitism (5th nomination).<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

<-- To reiterate Uncle G's point: Patience is a virtue. Very little is ever gained by summarily shutting down a discussion or process early. It leaves participants feeling belittled and dismissed. A good and desirable outcome from a deletion discussion includes more than the correct choice between "keep" or "delete." A close that leads unnecessarily to multiple heated discussions on various forums is, self-evidently, not an appropriate close. Sometimes follow-on drama is unavoidable, but the pointless agita generated by this sort of peremptory action is not irrelevant, it is harmful, and it is easily avoidable. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 19:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Other issues This is not a general venue for bitching about Jclemens. Protonk (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)}}
 * My experience with Jclemens is that he throws his weight around when confronted about his flouting of the rules. His behavior is consistent with a new user, not an admin. Experienced users should be even more civil than the average user, since their power to intimidate others is enhanced by their knowledge of just how far they can push the envelope and get away with it. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's the best example of "flouting the rules" where I "throw [my] weight around" and am not "more civil than the average user", then... wow. I appreciate the honesty, but that looks like me explaining rather civilly where my interpretation of a particular nuance (whether a prod decliner had to give a rationale, it was) differed from yours. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with Jclemens' behavior is that he takes shortcuts where the outcome is going to be the same no matter what, makes it unpleasant for others involved, then gets his back up when people question him. "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up". Abductive  (reasoning) 03:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So my crime is... ignoring process when the outcome is already obvious? I plead guilty! What cover up, though? It's not something I've ever denied. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * back in may, Jclemens speedy deleted LMFAO (band). I asked him for a deletion review [] because the band was seemingly notable, and not a candidate for speedy deletion, and the most Jclemens offered was to userfy it, which he never did. Another user eventually recreated the article from scratch. After he was told he made a mistake, he should have fixed the mistake by undoing the delete. Instead, he just obstructed the reacreation of an article that should have never been speedied Theserialcomma (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And where, precisely, did you actually ask for it to be userified? Looks to me like I offered, and you never took me up on it. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * i assume you made a mistake and forgot to actually check your own talk page history before posting this (diff: [] Theserialcomma (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That link looks irrelevant. Want to update it? Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * oops. i apologize for posting the wrong diff. here is the real one (updated the old posting too) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jclemens&diff=prev&oldid=288878633
 * At that point, which was almost five days after the original discussion, I replied to you indicating that it had already been done. What, exactly, should I have done differently at that point? Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * at that point, there was nothing for you to do because it was too late. but what you should have done was prevented the situation from getting to that point by recreating the article as it was, once it was proven to you that it was not a candidate for speedy deletion. this is what happened: you speedied a notable band, i told you why they were notable, and showed you more media coverage and why it was not a candidate for speedy deletion. you told me you'd usefy it, and then someone recreated it at some point before i responded. the point is, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. you incorrectly speedied it, so you should have recreated it. an admin who misuses his tools, and refuses to correct the error, or even admit something went wrong, is not my idea of a good admin. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Separate report
Please note that Jclemens has filed a report over at General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement regarding alleged incivility and hounding of Jclemens by Simon Dodd. As a strictly procedural note, perhaps that discussion should be brought over here or vice-versa. I don't know the substance of the dispute and I hesitate to involve myself, but on the surface of it the disputing parties may simply want to take a chill pill and be done with it.

As an aside, if any administrators are interested in helping out with the Obama articles, they may want to watch-list the "requests for enforcement" page I reference above, which has not been used much to date, and encourage editors to take Obama-related disputes there instead of here. That could reduce the traffic load and the heat here on this already overburdened page. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I thought that it was a community norm that if you try to get someone into hot water, you should notify that person. Clemens has demanded that I be sanctioned at the link Wikidemon gave, but he hasn't notified me that he is trying to do so. I would have had no idea - and no opportunity to respond - had Wikidemon not posted this notice. If Clemens had posted his motion (preposterous though it is: this has nothing to do with Obama-related articles) at AN or ANI, that failure to notify would have been in defiance of the mandate to "inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed" or are even "the subject of a discussion." If he had posted it at WP:WQA, he would have failed to heed the mandate to "[n]otify the reported user(s)." The warnings just quoted are not a series of isolated, unrelated provisions applicable only to the pages containing them. Rather, they are manifestations of a broader judgment by the community that both sides of a dispute should he heard. It speaks volumes that Clemens failed to notify.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Given your rather acrimonious reaction to my prior good faith efforts, I expected an uninvolved administrator to review the evidence and chat with you about it. Far from an attempt at getting you in "hot water", my preferred remedy is that you simply refactor the personal attacks and incivility and apologize for your behavior.  A topic ban would only be appropriate if a neutral party both found your conduct egregious and it continued past a warning, as has been pointed out on that page. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * it appears to me as if Jclemens is trying to seek punitive punishment against you for complaining about him. I don't see any evidence of actionable incivility, just what appears to be a counter attack from Jclemens. Just my opinion. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to move forward
(outdent for emphasis) If I changed the 2nd AfD to "no consensus", would you accede to that cataloguing and allow the third AfD to be closed as a snow keep without contesting it or requesting a DRV? Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's astonishing to me that after all this, after all these editors explaining it to you (including but not limited to user:King_of_Hearts, user:Uncle_G, user:B, user:SarekOfVulcan, and user:Nathan), that you still don't understand that snow closes are grossly inappropriate for contentious AFDs. In proposing yet again to prematurely close the AFD, you admit that you have yet to absorb one of the two lessons that I brought this to ANI to help you understand. As to the other one, nor do I see any kind of recognition that having made an honest error in closing the AFD prematurely, you acted inappropriately by refusing to undo that mistake, or that your actions have led to utter chaos that now can't be undone. Because you give us no reason to believe that you've learned your lesson, you give us every reason to believe that you'll do the same sort of thing in the future (indeed, you're already champing at the bit to do it again: you are still trying to close the AFD prematurely!), which underlines the appropriateness of a formal warning or sanctions (see WP:BLOCK ("Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption" (emphasis added))).<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm ... how many times do I need to say the closure was inappropriate? What is it I don't understand? --B (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is technically no such thing as a "snow keep". There's a "speedy keep", which this definitely doesn't meet the criteria for. JClemens, this was a _very_ bad suggestion. Might I suggest backing away from this article and its related discussions until the drama settles? You're not helping here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to underline that I strongly endorse your proposal at AfD#3 that the closing admin there take AfD#2 and AfD#3 as one discussion in determining the result. Doing that would remove a lot of the sting from Clemens' error (I had thought that the harm was irreversible, but your proposal ingeniously undoes it), and I would appreciate any kind of input on how we can get the closing admin to do that.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's only necessary if AfD#3 is closed early, and consensus seems to be against that solution at the moment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you'd be OK if AfD2 (both parts) and 3 were considered as one unified AfD? Would you then be OK with closing #3 in ~12 hours--as the three have run just about 156 hours between them? Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter what I think -- when I suggested it on AfD#3, I got jumped all over. The community doesn't like that idea. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that question was to User:Simon Dodd. I expect if the two of us can come to a reasonable agreement to amicably end the dispute the rest of Wikipedia would--well, mostly not care, but certainly not object. :-) Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a better idea -- let's wait 5 days and not find out. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you do not seem to grasp that AfDs are about making decisions: outcome, not process. No decision on Taitz' article remains to be made--the community has been heard from, and each successive renomination has resulted in a smaller proportion of !votes to delete. Various uninvolved editors and AfD participants have pointed out WP:DEADHORSE (implicitly or explicitly), but in assuming good faith, I present you one, simple question: Under what circumstances do you see Orly Taitz being deleted from Wikipedia? Jclemens (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a simpler question: Under what circumstances do you see this AfD closed early without creating more drama than it solves? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll answer your question after User:Simon Dodd answers mine. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, you're in it for the drama. Got it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You might have asked my motivation before presuming it. I'm in it for WP:BURO--the drama is a regrettable side effect of the community simply not taking WP:BURO seriously enough to shut down WP:POINT actions like this. Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer SarekofVulcan's question, the simple answer to close the discussion and this thread without moar dramah is to impose a topic ban on Simon Dodd. He's below admitted he doesn't see any current chance of a delete outcome, yet insists on prolonging the process.  The participants in the third AfD have widely endorsed keep and closure, and those who have advocated the third AfD be kept open would probably agree that it be closed early if there was no chance of yet another disruptive and futile renomination. Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What a puzzling question to ask to someone who thinks it ought to be deleted now. It will be deleted or redirected at whatever point in the future the community feels that we have sufficient distance from the single event for which Taitz is notable to see it as such. As you know, notability is not temporary. In ten, twenty months or so, Taitz and her crusade have vanished from the mainstream. When we then revisit this article, I fully expect that the community will, with cooler heads and clearer eyes, realize that it was temporarily dazzled by this event and the publicity around it, and that the article will be deleted (or at least merged) per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, and WP:SINGLEEVENT.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all. You've just admitted that tne entire third nomination is a WP:POINT violation. Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd say just put this baby to bed. I pissed in the wind and tossed in a token delete, but the outcome of AfD #3 here is a done deal. Tarc (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to just closing all of the drama? Jclemens is not going to be sanctioned. Simon Dodd is not going to be sanctioned. The closed AFD is not going to be reopened. The opened AFD is not going to be closed until its 5 days elapse. Continuing this thread and the one on General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement only add to the drama, so I'd like to propose we close both of them and move on with life. There is NOTHING whatsoever that is going to be decided here. --B (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No objections to closing this thread. It was closed before, and I wasn't the one who reopened it. Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Something of a COI there! Do users often object to closing a thread seeking sanctions against them? <font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sanctions against me aren't on the table, and you seem to be the only one who thinks they're appropriate. The more important question is: do you consent to the closing of this thread? Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improper block by Georgewilliamherbert (the sequel)
I don't have much hope of seeing anything done about this, but I want to voice my protest. There have been recent disputes at three of the "LaRouche" articles, the main disputants being Will Beback, Coleacanth and Maybellyne. Will had been agitating to delete references to LaRouche's economics theories and proposals. Colecanth and Maybellyne found substantial sources in the Russian and Chinese press. Will resisted their use, but the consensus at WP:RS/N supported their use.

Then tensions escalated. The LaRouche arbcom cases say don't use Wikipedia to promote LaRouche, and don't violate BLP at LaRouche articles. Coleacanth and Maybellyne were pushing the limits on the promotion side, and Will was pushing them on the BLP violation side. I had filed a request with the Mediation Cabal (Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-06/LaRouche movement) on August 8, which I think might have had a beneficial effect, as both sides of the conflict have been responsive to outside input. However, toward the end of last week Will went into a whirlwind of activity, making an enormous volume of controversial edits, and civility went out the window on both sides. I blame all parties, but Will more, because he's an "old hand," an admin, and my sense was that he was deliberately goading his opponents in order to create the pretext for having them banned (as in Gaming the system.) And sure enough, I discover this week that once again, Georgewilliamherbert has stepped in to do the job. Collaborating behind the scenes to impose a permanent ban based on the "duck test" diff is just a little bit too convenient, particularly because both admins are involved and share a POV; last time around, George was talking about the need to make sure the articles "are not a whitewash." As I said then, actions of this sort should be taken only by uninvolved admins, but I think that my request is falling on deaf ears. This smacks of an "old boys club" at Wikipedia where the club members get to dodge the constraints of policies such as NPOV, BLP, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN, simply by making their opponents disappear with the thinnest of pretexts. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Any diffs to speak of besides the one? Protonk (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All three accounts which I indefinitely blocked have been checkuser-confirmed (by others, I'm not a CU) to be sockpuppets of indefinitely banned, who has been a prolific sockpuppeteer and (if you note the talk page strikeouts Will did at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche ) were directly reinforcing each other in a discussion to create false sense of consensus, a direct violation of WP:SOCK, much less the prior user ban.
 * There is no thin pretext here - Hersch is permanently banned from Wikipedia, and to the extent that it takes us time to notice new sockpuppets arriving, only gets away with brief stints of editing here.
 * See also Long_term_abuse/Herschelkrustofsky for more details...
 * Leatherstocking, I understand you're sensitive about people stomping up and down on legitimate discussion and viewpoints there, particularly with our history there. But this is a long-standing abuse case ( 5 years, 59 plus accounts or IPs used by now ), in which the user is banned from editing.  If this appears to be unfair to others participating in discussion - I'm sorry, but we can't allow him to continue editing once he's detected.  He should not be there in the first place, and he knows that.  He's banned, really completely utterly banned, and we do not want him back.  That he's still at it 5 years later and still using multiple IP addresses at the same time should tell you something about the magnitude of the problem.
 * I am not involved in article content - I have refrained from doing so since I had to full-protect the article for a year a couple of years ago (and I believe I didn't do so beforehand), though I would have to review to see if I did any of the article talk page consensus changes that followed the protection.
 * We do have to have administrators with longstanding experience around to deal with ongoing abuse cases - knowing the signature of these users over a period of years makes a big difference in efficiency of enforcement of bans. As noted - I found usage patterns which made me extremely suspicious, I saw other information from other sources (wikichecker etc) which lined up and confirmed it, and after I made the blocks a checkuser was performed and verified that the users were in fact Herschelkrustovsky.  So my pattern matching was a correct analysis.
 * I did not rush to judgement here - I had been watching the patterns for a few weeks before I acted, and others were also watching for some time (I hadn't run the original wikichecker reports).
 * I'm sorry if you feel that this has a chilling effect. I have no intent to do so on your account.  I have no reason think or suspect you're doing anything wrong at the moment, and actions against this user should not be interpreted as any reflection of suspicion on you or anyone else.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Several things puzzle me here. You say a CU confirms sockpuppetry, and at the same time you say Herschelkrustovsky is using multiple IP addresses. Did the original Herschelkrustovsky account use multiple IP addresses? I ask because I too have watched this business of account after account being banned as socks of this person, and I get the impression that many of them are simply users with similar POV, at which point someone says "close enough," bans them, announces that their IP addresses are Herschelkrustovsky, and by the time the smoke clears there are umpteen different ISPs or IP ranges which are all alleged to be his, so it becomes very easy to accuse someone of being him. The latest two banned accounts actually did a lot of useful work, and the other thing which troubles me is that Will Beback edits very aggressively with a rather pronounced POV and seems to have a free pass to do so. --Leatherstocking (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't answer in detail, because A) I'm not a checkuser and didn't see the actual results, and B) our user privacy policy prohibits checkusers from sharing those details (only results are released, not the underlying privacy-relevant data). However, what we have been told generally by CUs previously is that Hersh uses a consistent set of IP ranges and other identifying information.  I am told that the correspondence is identical again - the same IP blocks, the same IPs, other characteristics the same.
 * With 60-odd total accounts in the history, there's plenty of evidence there. The CUs are good at this by now.
 * A banned user can at times come in with a new account and do some good work. But that doesn't mean they're not banned.  If we find them, they are blocked again.  That's what banning means.
 * In this case, what they were slightly more subtly working on was the same topic area where Hersh's abuse caused his banning - LaRouche related topics. A banned user who appears to be editing constructively with a new account in the area they were banned for affecting is often (though not surely) subtly trying to twist things to their personal bias or viewpoint again.  In this case, as there were 3 accounts reinforcing each other, they were making it look like more people were involved in the discussion than there really were - essentially, a lot of that page comes to Will and Hersh's sockpuppets talking.  And the sockpuppets talking to each other.  And a bit of your comments.  Having two or more accounts talking to each other, and reinforcing each other, is one of the prime reasons we have WP:SOCKPUPPET - it's entirely a cheat on our consensus rules, by making an artificial consensus out of one person's opinion, presented with the various socks.
 * I believe Will is working to seek NPOV on the article and good article contents in compliance with other policy. However, if you want a wider review of that, you can feel free to discuss it here.  As I have said, I am not making article content decisions in general there as I am so involved in the enforcement issue over time.  I don't think I'm grossly biased, but it deserves independent review.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I received no notification of this thread. It's only polite and reasonable to notify a user when initiating a thread about them on ANI.
 * Second, User:Herschelkrustofsky is well-known as a puppet master. He has used literally dozens of socks, usually a few at a time.
 * Third, I had no prior discussion with user:Georgewilliamherbert about this matter. He acted on his own, and then I mentioned the other accounts later.
 * Fourth, after I'd supplied Georgewilliamherbert with information about the users, and after he'd confirmed the violation, I then requested an investigation from a user with CU privileges. He confirmed that the three acounts were all using the same IPs, etc. He also indirectly confirmed that the users where the same as used by user:Number OneNineEight. As a result of the CU check, a number of acounts were blocked. BFD.    Will Beback    talk    10:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks like "prior discussion." If the banned accounts were "indirectly confirmed" as the same IPs as User:Number OneNineEight, why is the assertion being made that they are "confirmed" as User:Herschelkrustofsky, when User:Number OneNineEight is listed as a "suspected sockpuppet" of Herschelkrustofsky? I also distinctly recall that there was one group of accounts, including I believe User:Bill Chadwell, that you insisted were Herschelkrustofsky, and they turned out to be User:Gnetwerker. And by this time there must be so many IPs involved that I cannot help but suspect that some guesswork is being presented as scientific certainty, and that some users are simply being banned for holding the wrong POV. And meanwhile, all this banning certainly serves the interests of anyone who might have an agenda of moving the LaRouche articles a little off-kilter with respect to NPOV. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are all checkuser confirmed socks. Whether they're socks of Gnetwerker or Herschelkrustofsky is irrelevant. I wonder why you keep arguing that their blocks are improper, citing dodgy evidence, while you yourself, and indeed the blocking admin, can't even view the evidence.--Atlan (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of User:Bill Chadwell, and there's no sock tag on his user page. I'm curious how Leatherstocking even knows about this account or that he was a sock of Gnetwerker.    Will Beback    talk    18:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wrong banned user. I was thinking of user:Guillermo Ugarte and User:ClarkLewis. You say here that you are confident that Guillermo is HK, and then here you acknowledge that he is Gnetwerker. Further down the same page you will see a comment by Bill Chadwell, struck through by yourself with the the comment "banned user." And in the course of searching for these diffs, I discover here that you were seeking to have me banned as a sock, but a CU by Jayjg found me innocent (incidentally, I received no notification of this thread. It's only polite and reasonable to notify a user when you are attempting to have them banned on ANI.) --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we do not extend such courtesies to socks of banned users. I guess you could have been notified after it was established that you weren't a sock, but that's water under the bridge now.--Atlan (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Will didn't suggest in that thread that you were one of the socks - the only mention of you is Jayjg's comment on the CU results that you're unrelated and the blocks right below that, which said you were left alone. You were being discussed around that time last year, in various places, but I don't see anything in that thread.  Was there a SPI on you right near then?  I haven't found it yet.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the identities of puppet masters, as more information comes in a more accurate assessment can be made. In that case checkuser found those accounts and several others. The details of how they were used is murky, but under any construction they were being used to evade a block. If I start a thread about Leatherstocking on ANI I'll ll be sure to notify him. I didn't start the thread he's pointing to.    Will Beback    talk    01:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The edit Leatherstocking points to was in response to which was Will commenting on Maybellyne's talk page after I blocked them.
 * There was no communications prior to my block of Maybellyne that I remember or can find record of, and I was already deep into my work on the other two accounts when Will commented, and then sent me the info about the others.
 * Some inter-admin chatting, on and off the Wiki, is normal. I don't know Will outside Wikipedia, though we interact regularly on-Wiki and on email lists.
 * I would like to second Atlan's comment - regardless of how the accounts were spotted, checkuser confirms that they were in fact sockpuppets, and that's that.
 * I am glad that someone ran a CU and confirmed it - I am confident enough in my ability to spot the patterns that I will block on behavioral analysis. But a checkuser is a more firm confirmation.  Sometimes I make mistakes with behavioral analysis, but I get it right (and CU confirms) much more often.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I generally try not to follow myself up, but I wanted to comment to Leatherstocking -
 * I understand where your concern is coming from. And it's reasonable to bring things to ANI for review.  But this is fairly normal admin dealing with banned users and sockpuppets.  The duck test - WP:DUCK - is approved administrator operating policy.  We can issue warnings, sanctions, topic bans, or blocks based on reasonable behavioral evidence.  Many admins don't get that involved in abuse cases, many do.  But the thresholds have been discussed, approved by the community, approved by Arbcom, etc.
 * The particular topic is one I've been active in abuse issues on for some time - but it's a very small part of the total picture of abuse issues I have been involved in. If you're worried that I'm obsessive about the topic, please don't.  I really would prefer to ignore it.  It's only the very persistent abuser / banned user who keeps us watching it that closely.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit Summary


I went to WP:WQA with this and they said to bring it here. An editor left a rather abusive edit summary to his edit after I reverted him (his edit was against concensus, heck it said in caps not to change it):. Perhaps a civility block, or at the very least a warning? Soxwon (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I put it on AIV, so it's in three places. A race to the block! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a public library and has been a half hour since the last edit, so there is a good chance they are gone anyway, but I have blocked the IP for 3 hours. --B (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, also, the first edit was made by User:Seb0910, is it possible it was his IP? Soxwon (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you report Seb0910 to AIV? That's where I usually start with this kind of stuff. Meanwhile, I'm not sure how much good a 3 hour tour will do - unless we get lucky, and they get marooned on Gilligan's Island. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave a cursory glance to the contributions of the two and I don't see evidence that they are the same. Obviously, if they were,  it would be appropriate to block the named user indefinitely.  A checkuser could be requested, but honestly, I don't know that they are very likely to run it just on this. --B (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the only other thing was [this edit]. Either it would be editing another's talk, or they're the same (I got this just from the abuse log). Soxwon (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Check his talk page history, he was caught in an autoblock at this IP address. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC) However, I note Sebi0910 has made some useful contribs, so an indefblock seems unnecessary. Since it's been a while since he edited, perhaps chalk it up to momentary loss of temper, and no action unless it happens again? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hrm ... it does look like they are likely the same person then, or at the very least, known to each other (ie, two kids sitting in a library). I'm ambivalent on blocking the account - as infrequently as it edits, this user probably isn't coming back today anyway (so a block is likely to be pointless as it's not actually going to stop him from editing) and the only block we could enforce would be to hard block the library IP - something we'd rather avoid unless there is serious disruption. --B (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for fun, I filed a SPI case. Worried that this is the tip of some iceberg.   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  20:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded at SPI, left a warning on Seb0910's talk page. – <font color="#28f">Luna Santin (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Some canvassing from an apparently banned loon
see this for some crackpottery, no doubt this is already on some watchlists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.82.42 (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything there that calls for admin action. If you think there is, can you clarify? Looie496 (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto with Looie. What precisely do you want us addies to do? -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 23:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thirded. There's plenty of crackpottery here.  One more won't stand out really. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism
persistently vandalizes the article: History of Sri Lanka with edits that are highly racist and offensive in nature. In the past, this user has frequently and consistently violated WP:C, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS on several articles, chief among which is: Sinhalese people such as the serious WP:C violation this user made in this edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SSJGoku3 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why this user's appeal was ignored in WP:AIV. Vandalism-driven edits on pages re: Sri Lankan Tamils and Sinhalese (by both parties) is becoming rampant, and largely ignored, so I thought I would second the appeal and to suggest a broader body to monitor vandalism re: articles on Sri Lanka etc. (unless there is already such a thing?). Just a thought.Markyboy333 (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the first two links that you claim are diffs are just links to the articles, where the third link claimed to be a diff is in fact a diff. Did you use the wrong links? -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  00:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where do they claim the first two links are diffs? I don't see the claim. That begs the question though: Where's the proof of this "repeated vandalism"? Show some diffs please, I loathe to go digging.--Atlan (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I take it that SSJ is referring to and . Two reverts. Not edit warring. Judging from Elara (monarch), I'm not sure that I see a problem here; why was it reverted, SSJ? <font color="#CC0000">seicer  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  02:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Repeated anonymous insertion of incorrect material
Several editors on the Newsboys page have been reverting edits from user:99.233.196.169. He has no verifiable proof that a member has left the band, but insists on making the change. The three editors continue to revert the anonymous editor's changes and the user refuses to follow the reasons given in the band's talk page or to verifiability guidelines. Could we have the IP address blocked, or possibly limit edits on the page to users with accounts? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP for 24 hours. If he continues after he's unblocked, he should be blocked for longer. It's not a good idea to continue edit warring eight minutes after you're blocked. ( X! ·  talk )  · @298  · 06:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Block User:Barack Obama?
If there were a user named Barack Obama that was not the US President, would you block the user?

There is a user named User talk:Oscar Arias or User:Oscar Arias. The real President Arias is the head of state of Costa Rica. See Oscar Arias.

What is the correct thing to do? Block User:Oscar Arias and ask him to change his name? Oscar Arias (not the President) or OArias or Oscar Arias (USA) or Oscar Arias of Canada are better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acme Plumbing (talk • contribs) 05:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Username policy says you should not use a real person's name unless either it actually is you, or if you make it clear you're not the well-known person that the name might be mistaken for. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The correct thing to do? The account has made no edits since 2007, so doing nothing is the appropriate course of action here. Kevin (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So User:Barack Obama is ok if it is old? This user has at least one sockpuppet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oarias


 * I won't be mad if the user is allowed to go free. Acme Plumbing (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Somebody want to block ? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a moot question. The user hasn't edited since 2007 and hasn't edited an actual article since 2002.  Recommend moving on.   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  05:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unresolved until somebody deals with User:Governor Mark Sanford. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's blocked. WP:UAA is thataway.   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  05:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I reported it at UAA before, but since this discussion was here, I decided to mention it. Blowing off my request without even commenting on it was entirely inappropriate, as is your uncollegial comment above.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's all call it off. If someone has to be blocked, then all 3 must be blocked. Acme Plumbing (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. Resolved now.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Very unfair. 1 blocked, 2 not blocked.  The 2 unblocked are socks which makes it worse (names bad + socks) while the Governor is only a bad name. Wikipedia is unfair. This could be POV because the Governor is a Republican and some people are violently anti-Republican. Acme Plumbing (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, yeah, that's it, it's all because Sanford is a Republican. Isn't it more likely that blocking someone using his name falsely and getting blocked for it is a pro-Republican action?  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There really is no end to the silliness that is propagated here, is there. What socks are you talking about?   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  06:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I see is blocked and has been for years,  is very inactive and could easily be a different O. Arias, and  is even more inactive.  Please don't strike my resolve above - this is wasting people's time.  Like I said, WP:UAA is thataway.   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  06:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Oscar Arias and User:Oarias are socks which edit the same articles. Let's treat all 3 users the same (make that 4 if you include User:Barack Obama).  Block all or keep all unblocked.  That's all. I see the block says they can ask to be renamed so it's not that harsh a block. Acme Plumbing (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Socks of who? Just each other? Or someone else? Oscar Arias only edits about once a year, and Oarias not since last year. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of each other. There is another user.  User:Jon Corzine, Governor of New Jersey? Acme Plumbing (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If nothing is done to all the offending users, then should we change the username policy? It would be ok to use the real names of heads of states and state governors? No! Acme Plumbing (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bring this up at WT:U and WP:UAA, etc. Enough.  This is getting disruptive.   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  06:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You should take Oscar Arias and Oarias and any other user ID's of public figures to UAA, present them with said list, and they'll take appropriate action. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bring this up at WT:U and WP:UAA, etc. If you look through ancient old abandoned usernames, you'll find nonsense that will make Governor names look tame by comparison.  And those will be just as much a waste of time.  Abandoned accounts are abandoned accounts.   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  06:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

AIV Backlog
If an admin or two could take care of the AIV backlog, it would be appreciated. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 23:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, in future these type of notices are best placed at WP:AN. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Block needed for someone using the President's name as user name
See Below, this is NOT resolved. 2 socks remain unblocked. Let's not be unfair or show favortism. Either that or unblcok the governor.Acme Plumbing (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Take any and all questionable user names to WP:UAA and let them handle it. That's what that page is for. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sahlomee
has been forum shopping allegations of administrative abuse and vandalism against me in many places over the past days: All of this stems from one revert of a fringe nature from Apollo 12, apparently Sahlomee claims that Apollo 11 was a hoax, which is not the accepted history and not acceptable for the lead of the article for Apollo 12. This user seems to not grasp how to properly discuss grievances against editors and is not only blatantly forum-shopping but is also being highly disruptive in the process and is making an attempt to harass me into going away. This editor clearly is not here to contribute productively and to assume good faith or to discuss edits and seems to be a single-purpose editor because they have never made an attempt to discuss this matter with me or anyone on the talk page of the article and seems to be hell-bent on getting me in trouble for reverting him by as many means as are available (I'm surprised there hasn't been a complaint here yet). So far I have refrained from using my administrative tools to protect the article or block Sahlomee, but it is very tempting. -MBK004 05:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reported me as a vandal to WP:AIV:, ,
 * Filed a report at WP:WQA:
 * Filed an RFC against me: Requests for comment/MBK004
 * Filed a request for mediation at the Mediation Cabal: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-11/Apollo 12
 * Filed a DRV for an article which was never deleted: Deletion review/Log/2009 August 11
 * blocked for disruption  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 08:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Courtesy note: I've closed the WQA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite bans required for vandalism accounts
These three accounts have been set up for the purposes of vandalism only. I recommend indefinite blocks be placed on all three: User:Sgeggie63, User:Wally1988 and User:Skiingat54162. --Jack | talk page 06:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you taken these accounts to WP:AIV? - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 06:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're even able to go to WP:AIV. The only account with enough of a history is the last one on the list who hasn't edited since their 48 hour block, thus it's not a pressing issue either. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates
Of late, I've been the only person who's regularly closing FPCs. This causes a problem when I vote on them.

So, if you don't mind, I'm going to ask for some uninvolved administrator to close two FPCs.

I think both are pretty clear promotes, so I'll try to make this easy:

The decision

Go here:. Confirm there is at least 2/3rds support for File:Chaga_hut_noadj.jpg - it's a little confusing, but it's pretty clear all of the support votes are referencing that as the supported one.

If you agree this has the necessary 2/3rds consensus, copy and paste the following at the bottom of :



If you disagree, paste the following.



Similarly, go to and see if a 2/3rds majority supported it. If you agree, paste the following at the bottom of that page:



If you disagree, paste the following:



If you then put a message on my talk page, I will handle all the remaining steps for you. There'll be more in two days, so if this goes well, I hope you won't mind further messages. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 188 FCs served 09:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ - admittedly, this was harder than I thought it would be. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism revert request
As I'm at work can someone else check the contribs of and revert the vandalism. FT2 (Talk 12:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ???user hasn't edited since 29 July. I agree every contribution appears to be vandalism, but it's all been reverted ages ago)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, being at work I'm limited on time and couldn't get round to checking whether the contribs had been sorted out or not. I noted at least one edit had not been (fixed today upon request ), so it seemed possible other vandalism edits had gone un-noticed too. FT2 (Talk 14:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that one was fixed when I looked. Actually, I think this is more than one person.  The early (May) edits are quite sensible and even useful.  it is the later ones that are all vandalism. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Boyhere sockpuppeting, making disruptive edits
While he did post a "retired" tag on his original user page, he has immediately created a new account called User:XEuser! to avoid scrutiny. (Proof) Some action should really be taken against this user, since a large majority of his edits are disruptive. <font color="#006600">GraYoshi2x► talk 14:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noting this; I was about to do the same. has redirected  to . It has since been reverted, but should be worth noting and watching. <font color="#CC0000">seicer  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  14:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the IP's contributions, this is also clearly the same user - as evidenced by the types of articles (TV and TV-ratings related, redirects). -Sme3 (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I indefinitely blocked XEuser! per WP:SOCK and left a message on Boyhere's talk. As suggested here, marking one account "retired" and immediately creating another to do the exact same edits is a clear violation.   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  15:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Chuthya is not assuming good faith.
This user is not assuming good faith while contributing to Wikipedia, specially at AfD discussions. He/she is on personal rivalry with and opposes his votes at every single AfD discussion without any valid reasons. I do not think this account is used these days for any purpose other than opposing kevin's vote. Such act disrupts discussions. User talk:Chuthya and his/her contributions are evidence of disruption caused by this careless behavior. Following articles 1,2, 3 and 4 were deproded just because it was proposed by Kevin and reason given was "asserts notability". Please look at this user's contribution for evidence regarding dubious votes. <font color="Green" face="Times New Roman" size="4">Hitro <font color="#FF00FF" face="courier" size="1"> talk 15:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I really see no admin action necessary so far. Remember that AGF is a behavioral guideline, not a policy. If Kevin feels that Chuthya is harassing him, then I think Kevin should be the one to bring it here to ANI. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  15:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that but the major thing here is disruption at AfD. Harassing Kevin is secondary problem. <font color="Green" face="Times New Roman" size="4">Hitro <font color="#FF00FF" face="courier" size="1"> talk 15:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Admins consider all comments and behaviour when closing an AFD. We know to look for certain things that may influence the consensus, but thanks for letting us know. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 15:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't 100% agree with the above. If someone is following someone's contribs blindly trying to cancel out AFD votes, that is stal... - er I guess the PC term is wikihounding now.  That's disruption and a policy violation.  I'll be happy to leave Chuthya a message to that effect.   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  16:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Jay Jennings
The following user talk page here has created duplicate pages found here, and removed AfD notifications from the article as seen here. I would put a speedy deletion template on the second page and return the original AfD disclaimer on the first page, but I think the user would just remove them anyways. Thoughts?keystoneridin! (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have restored the AfD notification to the article page; I see he had already been warned about this. Not sure what you mean by he has created duplicate pages, I don't see any. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Somehow the pages were corrected before you came along. Thanks for your help anyways.keystoneridin! (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack by LTSally
Among other things, User:LTSally, wrote these things in my talk page:

''Part of my role here as part of the Wikipedia community is to moderate the influence of people such as yourself who search no further than your own religion's publications to determine the truth; people who think that dumping a dozen long extracts from the WT CD-ROM on a talk page adds value to a discussion. I don't care whether you have read Penton's book, or Rogerson's, or Holden's, or Wills', or Franz's, or Gruss's, or Stroup's. They are all diligently researched and provide an external, though not always favorable, view of your religion. '''You research, and parrot, only one source, because your religion tells you it is the only reliable, truthful source. That's your business, but don't lecture me on bias'.

This is a direct personal attack, incited by religious prejudice, and I find it disgraceful.--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst what amounts to an attack varies per person, I do not believe this is an issue that needs handled here. You should discuss the comment with the user, but if you're seeking comments by others then consider taking this to WP:WQA. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 14:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I have warned the user about our policy on civility. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 14:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to thank you for your help. I hope that in future things will become better.--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Persistent and socking spammer
was indef. blocked as an SPA using the account to add links to his website www.brandbihar.com at Kama Sutra and other pages. Since then he has created obvious sock accounts and used various IPs including to add the link to Kama Sutra, Ananga Ranga and Missionary position more than 30 times over the last 3 months. The page has been semi-protected a few times, but the spammer just returns once the protection ends. Can someone indef. the two sock accounts and semi-protect the page fort a few weeks ? Also can the website www.brandbihar.com be added to a spam black list ? Abecedare (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Might want to take this to WP:SPI. Cheers,  I 'mperator 17:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I considered thet, but the socking is too blatant to require any deep investigation or checkuser. I filed the request here since it concerns socking, spamming, semi-protection and/or address blacklisting and I am hopeful that a single admin can address all these aspects, without the need for multiple board posts. Btw, User:Tanthalas39 blocked one of the sock accounts for spamming just as I filed this report. Abecedare (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am in the midst of packing for a trip, but I agree with Abecedare - and recommend an admin protect relevant pages and block the socks. No need for an SPI. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  17:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Accounts indeffed. Three most prominent articles semied for a few weeks. 59.94.32.0/20 range blocked for 2 weeks because I'm sure there are more than three articles he can spam if we protect the three most prominent ones. Protonk (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Protonk. Abecedare (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Spanish flu
Hi, this may not be the correct place for this, but the Main Page talk page says to bring vandalism problems here, so it seemed like a good idea. The article Spanish flu and possibly others is marred by a giant image of a penis and I can't work out how to remove it. Can anyone help?--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. It was vandalism on Influenza, which has since been removed.  If you still see it you can try purging the page.  When you see this stuff in the future, click "Related changes" on the left sidebar and look for template edits like this one.  Since the edit used the "includeonly" tag, the picture will show up only on pages where the template is transcluded, not on the template itself, so check the page history for the template. For example, Special:RecentChangesLinked/1918_flu_pandemic shows the Influenza template edits quite clearly.  Again, thanks for the help and I'm sorry we didn't catch it sooner. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Serial Venezuelan Katy Perry vandal
We have an ongoing problem with an editor on the Katy Perry articles that has been going on for nearly a year. These accounts are all obviously the same editor:

The logs and talk pages tell the tale: 201.209.224.208, 201.209.224.71, and 201.209.224.208 have all been blocked for inappropriate edits to Katy Perry articles. User talk:201.209.250.7, User talk:201.209.234.93, and User talk:201.209.230.203 are all covered with warnings for an editor steadily approaching a block, and then changing IP addresses shortly before the block actually arrives.

All of these addresses fall in the range 201.209.224.0/19. Scanning contributions for collateral damage, I find none. I manually stepped through every 24 in that range searching for anonymous contributions, and I can find no other contributions from 2009: all are from 2008 and before. I think it's quite safe to place a softblock on this range for say, 1 month, to see if we can get this problem to go away.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Protonk (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sleeper alert: DFKNGG took up the moment the soft-block went in effect.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Boy, good thing you aren't an admin.  Your raging deletionism would have surely gotten in the way of pursuing this particular thankless task. *sigh* Protonk (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Long term vandal's IP needs longer block
From this user's handful of edits it was clear to me that this IP was a reincarnation of the vandal who slanders Haim Saban and vandalizes various pages relating to Power Rangers and its sister series (more information here). I had listed it on WP:AIV and it was blocked by Killiondude, however I feel that the IP should be blocked for a longer period of time as a previous short term block on another IP address that this vandal has used resulted in the vandal returning on the same IP to edit (I cannot find this IP address right now, but it is probably the one listed on my sandbox in diffs).

I am requesting that this block be extended and talk page editing disabled, due to the fact that he will inevitably fill the talk page with his usual screed, unless that has been blocked entirely by the edit filter that King of Hearts put in place per my requests.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 23:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Page semi'ed for duration of block. I think the extension request would be best directed at the blocking admin. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked and he refused.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 14:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A longer block would be very good before the current one expires and the user returns and vandalizes with the IP again, as he had done in the past.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Keepscases
I know that I cannot possibly claim neutrality in this case, but do others find this wholly unwarranted? — Animum  (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would certainly hope not; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_you_stopped_beating_your_wife Keepscases (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you stopped beating your wife? is a common way of saying "I cannot answer the question because the way you've phrased it makes incorrect assumptions". While I'm not sure I agree with Keepscases that it was a good example of one of those questions, I don't see what the problem is with this particular message that warrants immediate admin attention. ~ mazca  talk 21:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The question I was responding to was an unfair one, in that it seeks to reduce a nuanced issue into a yes-or-no response, and is a loaded question based on the word "incapable". I am not "incapable" of playing quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys, that doesn't mean I have any business doing so. Keepscases (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh! I wasn't aware that it was an idiom, so I thought that you meant it literally. I'm quite sorry. — Animum  (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I object to Keepcases claim that he's capable of playing quarterback for the Cowboys. Admittedly, they haven't made it past the first round of the playoffs (when they've gotten as far as the playoffs) in a few years, but they're not that bad. Now the Lions or Bengals, that would be a different story. That might be an improvement at the quarterback position from what I've seen. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we can all forgive Animum for his idiotic idiomatic ignorance. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I beat my wife up every morning. I get up at 6 and she gets up at 7.
 * I'll get back to you when I can think of one even older than that one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, someone wrap this up in a nice blue box for archiving before someone perpetrates more wordplay. Please. Now that Animum knows there was no animus involved -- Doh! even I can't help it. Please, stop us before we pun again. -- Noroton (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why beat one's wife when her mother moves far slower which helps with maintaining accuracy. I wonder if anyone asked that question of OJ? Huh? Well he doesn't strike me as the most imaginative guy in the world. --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  22:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ...Way to keep the conversation nice and light-hearted. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory <font color="#555555"> (user • talk • contribs) 04:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I assure you, if I ever start baselessly accusing Wikipedians I've never met of spousal abuse, I'll wholeheartedly support my own permanent ban. Keepscases (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible abuse of Wikipedia authority
During the course of an edit war on the “Robert Lanza” page a Wiki editor “Sinneed” got involved. His involvement seems to have become personal. Here is just one of many examples of his possible abuse of Wiki authority. On August 11, a contributor gave what seemed an honest assessment of how to help. He/she suggested that “it may be time to step back and use some common sense.” A Wiki administrator (Tantalas39) responded, saying he thought the contributor’s message was “most helpful.”

Sinneed responded by saying: "Well, I guess I don't have any [common sense], as you see the world. I fear I am not as intelligent as Tantalas39, and I have no idea what you are saying…. “No need to explain for me, I am just not bright enough to see through, I guess.”

This is just one example of Sinneed’s seemingly emotional involvement in this case. Shortly after this response, Sinneed took (what seemed like) retaliatory action. Rather than trying to de-escalate the situation, Sinneed posted a message in response to one of the warring parties (the one posting negative material), asking them to “rework” another separate Wiki page about Robert Lanza’s theory “Biocentrism.’ This Wiki page previously had not been under dispute, nor involved in an edit war or any other discussion whatsoever. Sinneed wrote to the warring party ''“Please help. I expect to argue strongly that more bulk for Biocentrism belongs in the article, ugly or not.”''

It’s unclear why Sinneed suddenly dragged the “Biocentrism” page into this edit war. No one took Sinneed’s bait to spread the war to a second Wiki page. But his questionable actions didn’t stop. Sinneed then copied -- verbatim-- the entire disputed edit war section (that had been place under administrative protection on the "Robert Lanza" page) over to the "Biocentrism" page. This material (mostly negative) is now officially on two Wiki sites. This kind of behavior doesn't seem objective from the outside. It seems counter-productive and only serves to escalate the edit war to a second Wiki page.

I request Sinneed be removed as editor overseeing the “Robert Lanza” (and now “Biocentrism”) pages, and that the Biocentrism page be restored to its original content. Regener (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sinneed is not in charge of overseeing Robert Lanza, Biocentrism, or indeed any article. Wikipedia articles are not overseen by any particular editor, but rather by anyone who wants to edit them. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  22:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not formal or something. If you want the article to be different, your best bet is to edit it collaboratively, and use dispute resolution strategies to deal with conflicts. It's much better to work it out via the community than to come to the Admins' board seeking authority. We're just a bunch of editors with more buttons, and we're not at all guaranteed to be better at resolving conflict than you are. My recommendation is to expand the scope of the discussion to include more people. The best way to do this is to go to relevant WikiProjects and ask the regulars for input. They'll understand the context much better than an uninvolved admin who might just shoot from the hip. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if you disagree with him moving all that stuff (and it sounds like he had no consensus to do so), just move it back (or delete it out of the move to article), and start a discussion about what material belongs in which article.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Catterick
I have just put an indefinite block on this account on the ground that he is um 'really eccentric'. He has been here for years but has used sockpuppets to avoid banning (IMO). My reasoning for the indefinite is that I'm not sure how long the block should be but my thinking at the moment is that he is incompetent at actual editing (evidence in a minute) and that he is disruptive on talk pages so is very much a net negative to the project. However, as I said, I have only looked at his recent edits. perhaps he has been helpful at some time in the past? If not then I think we should go for community ban. Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 08:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Evidence for disruption: See my talk page
 * Evidence for incompetence here Note that I am not saying that we should ban him because he can't edit articles, but that when coupled with constantly stirring up trouble for the sake of it means that we can cut him no slack. Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 09:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There was previous discussion of his actions here - and (unverified but checkable) evidence of sockpuppetry here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Having just come across this person on the Richmondshire article and trying to work with them to get the information they supplied sourced so that it could be verified. I find that they appear more interested in long discussions on the talk page (which was moved to talk:Richmondshire from my talk page by the user), to attacking other users and complaining at my request for in-line citations. If an indefinite ban is not maintained then there needs to be some form of mentoring and guidance for the editor to enable them to work collaboratively with others. Keith D (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With the best will in the world, I don't think mentoring would work - I've just discovered this and this, going back to 2003. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO Catterick is quite knowledgeable on British history and his opposition to the manipulation of various Wikipedia articles by myth making disinformation campaigns, carried out by various regionalist, separatist and post-Troskyite interest groups is a welcome addition. However he must approach this in a far more cool headed manner and also when writing articles, learn how to use references like in the Richmondshire article above. I've only become aware of the user in the last couple of days, but if he managed to calm it down a lot (and I do mean a lot) his contribution could be a positive one to the project. Perhaps the mentoring thing which Keith suggested is worth giving ago? As a last chance saloon sort of thing. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I promised him that if he wanted to comment here I'd copy it over. However he has had a lot to say so it would be best if interested parties went to his talk page. Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 17:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if that is workable. I just had a look at his Talk page & he has made quite a hash of it, cut-n-pasting the same few paragraph over & over to it until it weighs in at 2 million kbytes. I'd blank & protect his talk page, except that the last few times I pressed my Admin button no one was happy with the result. -- llywrch (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need to blank the talk page unless it gets bigger substantially. But I'm also not seeing strong evidence that he should ever be unblocked. Protonk (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it needs doing but as the one who put an indefinite block on an established user's account I think it should be another admin rather than me. Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 22:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at Ghmyrtle's evidence above this is a long term abusive editor who has been here since 2003 and had been banned by the AC in 2004 for 1 year. He is pretty fond of using socks and we should probably try to identify as many as possible and block them all. Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 22:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sock-chasing is not my strong point but I agree. I can see very little evidence that he is anything other than a disruptive troll and an open-ended block seems over-due to me. Ben   Mac  Dui  07:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I suspect he's probably capable of interesting original research. But that's of no value on this site, especially when coupled with his inability to present his conclusions in a way which is comprehensible to readers; or to take account of other people's different conclusions and recognise the difference between fringe theories and consensus; or to engage in a civil manner with other editors and avoid becoming fixated on perceived slights; or to restrain himself from abuse and threats.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IMHO, Lord Loxley/Catterick seeks 'drama'. Will he change his Wiki ways? or will he accuse others of ganging up on him. 'Tis up to him to decide his Wiki-fate. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If hes used socks before, won't he just do that again to get around the block? Perhaps it would be better if he was in the community but had somebody to watch over and guide how to correctly and coherently write articles, with refs and everything. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, he will try again, and editors need to be vigilant - it's pretty much obvious from the articles he works on, and how he contributes (mostly incomprehensible, sometimes offensive, rants about obscure aspects of Yorkshire and related history, punctuated by abuse of other editors). I think, if you go thr ough the archives of his past interactions with other editors, it's fairly obvious that the "mentoring" approach would not work.  He's been around a long time and believes he is right, and I don't believe he will change.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That was pretty much my conclusion. Mentoring works in some cases. But I can't see it working here. Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 08:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Outing by BullRangifer
In a recent sockpuppet investigation, BullRangifer posted what he believes to be the city in which I live in an effort to link me to an IP address block which had been edit warring. Before he made his post, I made this post where I stated "if the investigating admin ... would like any information about my actual location or permanent IP address, please feel free to contact me via email." I think it is quite evident from my post that I didn't want my location discussed and/or revealed publicly in this forum.

Further, BullRangifer made his own post at the SPI where he warned editors against posting his actual location on Wikipedia because of "serious security issues". Unfortunately, BullRangifer didn't extend me the same courtesy.

In BullRangifer's defense, he claims that my location was well-known already by those at Wikipedia because of the one time two years ago that I accidentally edited while logged out. I don't think this is a valid excuse because while that one edit did reveal my location at the time I made that one particular edit, no one made a big deal about it and to the best of my knowledge no one on Wikipedia has ever discussed my location based on that edit. This presumed location of mine was not well-known until BullRangifer posted it on SPI.

By stating the location which he presumes I live, BullRangifer has violated WP:OUTING. I ask for the proper reprocussions and for my privacy to be reinstated by Oversight. Thank you. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 02:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The WP:Requests for oversight policy contains instructions for requesting oversight, to wit: E-mail the mailing list for such requests, oversight-l at lists.wikimedia.org. Posting private information, or potentially private information, to a widely trafficked public noticeboard is not necessarily a recipe for keeping that information under wraps. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 02:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I already sent an email to the mailing list and effectively was told that the cat is out of the bag now, so what do you want us to do about it? Remove the entire SPI case?
 * If it is generally known by the other participants in this dispute that you live in LA, Oversight can not put that cat back in its bag.
 * I was baffled by this response. And it was not generally presumed by anyone that I live in L.A. before BullRangifer made this post. So here I am. The cat is out of the bag indeed (whether or not it is the correct cat) and WP:OUTING makes it pretty clear what is in order now in terms of reprocussions. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 03:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't want to be a dick, but you have probably made this location and its possible attachment to you much more prominent by posting on this page. email oversight if you want the diffs removed. Protonk (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In future if there's something you want oversighted, you're much better off handling it privately rather than posting about here on ANI which really defeats the purpose and just brings more attention to the incident. I understand you requested oversight but you really should have continued to discuss with the oversighters privately or even contacted an admin and asked them to do a selective deletion rather than coming here. Now that you've voluntarily reposted the location here yourself, I don't think there's any point in pursuing this further. Sarah 04:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been emailing oversight and just emailed them again at Protonk's behest. They didn't respond to my previous request. What am I supposed to do? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 04:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's courtesy blanked for now. Whenever oversight responds I'll figure out if I want to delete the revisions the old fashioned way. Protonk (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a start. Thanks, Protonk. I want to make it clear that this violation of WP:OUTING wasn't accidental or non-malicious. BullRangifer is an editor with a long-standing grudge against me who was falsely accusing me of sockpuppeteering. He clearly knew it was wrong yet went ahead and "outed" me anyhow by revealing what he believes to be my location. He even went so far as asking another editor who contributed to the SPI to change his "inaccurate" location information so that the archives will contain the information about my location which BullRangifer assumes to be correct. That editor heeded BullRangifer's assumption about my location and changed his post in a further violation of WP:OUTING. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 07:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understood from your previous comment that Oversight had responded but didn't agree oversight was warranted, which (of course) is very different to not responding at all. If they told you they didn't think it was warranted and you disagreed and still felt it was warranted under policy, you should have continued discussing it with them and even asked another oversighter to give a second opinion if you felt strongly about it. In future, if you email the oversight mailing list and don't get a response or don't get a favourable response, you could email someone with oversight directly or you could email an admin you trust and ask them to at least do a selective deletion and, if necessary, block the user. If you don't know any admins personally that you could ask, you could look through the admin list. I haven't looked extensively at this and don't know much about the background, but I must admit that I'm not overly convinced by that evidence. The user seems to have identified an instance where you resigned an IP comment with your account and then done an IP lookup (which is something we facilitate by providing various links to whois, geolocate and traceroute services on each IP talk page). SPI walks a very fine line, trying to balance the project's interests with individual's personal interests, and it would often be much better if we could somehow present that kind of information in a way that can't be read by Joe Blow passing by, but when investigating suspected disruptive editing, we can't just ignore evidence where someone has mistakenly edited while logged out and then come along and resigned their comments. Admis can do selective deletions. A long time ago I did a selective deletion for a then non-admin (who is now an arbitrator) who was mistakenly logged out when posting a comment obviously from him and I'm sure if you asked nicely and it was possible (some page histories are just too messy) someone would have helped you and then you could have redone your post logged in, but you really need to do that straight away and without drawing public attention to it, otherwise it defeats the purpose. Also note that WP:OUTING doesn't apply if you voluntarily provide the information yourself. Note that I've just deleted the past history of your userpage because it contained a set of five links to what I can only assume is your real world identity, your real world website and real world work. Based on what I've seen at those links, I would concur with the oversighter who advised you that it was too late to put the cat back in the bag. From what you've been saying above about privacy and outing etc, I'm assuming you'd like those revisions deleted for personal reasons and am deleting before posting this here because no doubt once I post this people will try to look, but it needs to be noted that you appear to have provided considerable real world identifying information about yourself voluntarily and have made no effort to have it removed from this website, so I honestly don't think you have been WP:OUTed by the SPI. I have restored the last version of your userpage. If you didn't really want the history deleted and would like me to restore the whole thing or would like other versions restored, please email me and I will do so for you. Sarah 09:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Really, I don't see how posting an educated guess at someone's city of residence violates WP:OUTING. It's a stretch to consider "LA" to be contact information for you. If I take a stab and say someone is from the United Kingdom, is that a violation of WP:OUTING? The policy states that posting personal information is prohibited. I'm not convinced that your living in LA is "personal information". Wikipedia policy does not - and can not - guarantee complete anonymity. This policy - which is part of WP:HA - protects you against harassment, not against people taking a guess at what city you live in based on IP addresses. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  15:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, that does it! By filing this absurd thread, Levine2112 forces me to file a full SPI against him. I have refrained from doing so for several years, and he should have known I could have done it and was being merciful, but this is too much. Why "absurd thread"? Because geolocation is an essential part of an SPI, and it's absurd for the one suspected of abusive socking to be allowed to have the evidence disturbed or deleted. Please stop all oversighting now before more evidence is disturbed. There is nothing urgent about this, nor is his security threatened. Los Angeles is a huge area! His userpage history contains evidence of gross deceptiveness and it is needed. I am traveling now and won't be able to file the SPI report for possibly a week, but it's coming and will show instances of socking, votestacking, etc.. Levine2112's silence during the current SPI has been telling, and it would have been wise for him to continue to lay low, but he made the mistake of pressing my hand, and even more of the cat will be out of the bag. This is an editor who has great potential, but who has abused the system, and the time has come for documenting his deceptiveness. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we've all been grateful for your "mercy" of late, but I'm sure I speak for all of us when I say we can't wait for your tell-all SPI report. I'm sure Levine will regret "pressing your hand". <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  15:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Just two quick comments: 1) I had no idea where Levine is editing from; I don't think this was general knowledge. If it was, then I think I have quite a few things to say about BullRangifer that are also general knowledge. 2) I am not getting the impression that Levine is particularly serious about keeping the information private. Hans Adler 15:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer, like Tan I too look forward to your report. I am worried not because I am or was ever guilty of sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting, but because of the way that you twist information into the "truth" which you want to disseminate to the masses. I am worried because this is what you do both on and off Wiki and have been pretty effective at selling your version of the TruthTM to the masses. You provide selective information and conjecture to create misinformation and then pass if off as the truth. This is exactly what you did in this SPI with the information which clearly violated WP:OUTING. And though the report proved to be inconclusive, somehow your "evidence" was enough for an involved admin to mete out a six month topic ban. This is what I worry about. You are very convincing even when the evidence is not on your side.


 * Tan, BullRangifer was not providing a "educated guess". Educated guesses would be fine provided that it is clear that they are guesses. Rather, BullRangifer made a declarative statement about my location (Levine lives here).


 * It is ridiculous to blame me for publicizing the cat which BullRangifer had let out of the bag so I'll go now and leave you with this. Check my block log. I was once blocked for outing BullRangifer by provided an external link which contained one piece of personal information about BullRangifer. This personal information was something which BullRangifer had already shared with Wikipedia on his user page through the various external links he provided to his personal blog, web rings and chat boards. Yet, I still got blocked for violating OUTING. Now here we are, BullRangifer declares one piece of my personal information and his defense is that this information is already well-known. Is it wrong for me to expect the same punishment for him?


 * My question to BullRangifer is this: How do you know my location is well-known when no one on Wikipedia has ever discussed it aside from you? Are you discussing my location with editors off of Wikipedia? I know that over the years you have actively recruited editors to Wikipedia from other sources to come take up arms against me and "my kind", but are you now telling us that you keep in touch with these editors off Wikipedia and discuss my personal information? I don't want to sound too much like Abd (for fear that BullRangifer will now accuse me of being his sockpuppet), but there certainly does seem to be an cabal! :-)


 * BullRangifer's edit history shows that he came to Wikipedia with an agenda to disseminate mis-information. However, when his POV pushing efforts were repeatedly thwarted by yours truly, he marked me as a target who needs to be eliminated. Are these sockpuppet accusations just his latest attempt to extract this thorn in his side? I wonder. BullRangifer, have a safe journey and I look forward to your return when you can continue your now four-year mission to rid Wikipedia of me (simply because I don't let you push your POV). -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 17:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Without responding to all that, two notes: I take no responsibility, nor accept any precedent from, any administrator who blocked you earlier. Secondly, expecting "punishment" is moot; blocks are not punitive. Using this as a tit-for-tat is simply using up Wikipedia resources and admin time without reason. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  17:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think I am asking for tit-for-tat, then I guess I am not being clear. I am thoroughly appreciative that you resist speculating or accepting responsibility for other admins and don't accept their actions as precedent. However, I don't think that the "blocks are not punitive" logic is fairly applied across Wikipedia. WP:OUTING even asserts that intentional and malicious violations of this policy are grounds for an immediate block. If not punitive, what other function would such a block serve? Okay, that's probably a bit off-topic here and I don't want to waste anymore of Wikipedia's resources, but that's one that makes me scratch my head. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 19:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose that you have to take it in context of my initial statements here in this thread - that I don't think this is an "outing". Naming someone's city of residence is far from personal information, in my opinion. That said, in order to block, I have to have something I am preventing - and I don't see any evidence that he was breaking policy in the first place, let alone threatening to do it again. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  20:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tan's comments that this does not appear to be outing and that it's difficult to see any justification for blocking and I don't think a block would be sustainable due to the fact that Levine provided the information himself which is an exemption under the outing policy. Sarah 02:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I remain unconvinced that there's been any outing due to the extensive amount of personal information Levine has voluntarily provided about himself and in nearly four years has never made any effort to have removed. The Outing policy talks about someone's home or workplace address but it doesn't say that general information or that the city an IP resolves to, when this information is obtained from an IP which the user has self-identified as their own, amounts to outing under the policy. And if it is "outing" ANI, SPI, COIN, etc would fall apart as we deal with this sort of information every day. The outing policy says: "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not) is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted one's own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia oneself." Like Tan I'm not at all convinced that naming a city which is one of the largest cities in the world constitutes "personal information" but it seems to me that even if we say a city name qualifies as "personal information", because Levine voluntarily posted (and left there for nearly four years) links to real world identifying webpages and identified his own IPs, I think there has been no outing. That Levine has continued posting the information he objects to here on ANI, even after being advised to pursue private resolution because posting about it here will only draw further attention to the information he claims to want kept private, just reinforces my belief there has been no outing and makes it hard to take his claim that he's looking to mitigate an outing seriously but rather, in combination with his comments above about blocking, appears to simply be an attempt to exact revenge and manipulate an admin into blocking a long standing opponent. I think it's about time to call this complaint resolved. Sarah 02:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Levine said: "It is ridiculous to blame me for publicizing the cat which BullRangifer had let out of the bag". No. BullRangifer didn't let the cat out of the bag. You let the cat out of the bag by posting links to extensive self-identifying information and self-identifying your own IP address. BullRangifer has simply collated the information you voluntarily provided yourself. The difference between what you describe you were blocked for and what happened here is that in this case you voluntarily posted the information yourself. Sarah 02:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarah, can you please email me and tell me about the self-identifying website you describe here. I am unaware of it. Thanks! -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 05:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I explained above. You had five website links in your userpage history which is why I deleted it. As far as I can see you've outed yourself by providing those websites links, using this account name and resigning logged out comments with your account. I'm trying to AGF but I'm having a hard time believing you're genuinely distressed by what happened rather than merely seeing it as an opportunity to pursue "punishment" (as you say) for a long-time editorial opponent. Sarah 07:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)'


 * I am another editor that didn't know where Levine2112 was located until BullRangifer outted him. I am  also the other editor accused by BullRangifer in this SPI of having "shadow/alter-ego" IPs working for me on an article where I have a grand total of 3 edits back in April.
 * I asked Shell specifically about what BullRangifer said when I asked him about outting Levine2112 - Shell said, "The way I understand things, any information of a private nature should be emailed to the checkusers rather than posted on wiki. I don't believe this is quite the same thing as outing (linking a pseudonym to a real name) but its the same principle. A slip up with a login is likely considered private where someone publicly declaring where they live or work probably wouldn't be."  In other words, BullRangifer should have emailed the checkuser with the information of the login slip information,  not posted it publicly and announced this was where Levine2112 lived.
 * As for the links to websites on Levine's user page history.. I never saw them. BullRangifer never mentioned any websites - and I bet he would have used them if he had known about them.  --<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk  09:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So I guess the outcome of this is that this was not outing, and a fortiori it is also not outing to say which country BullRangifer (formerly Fyslee) is from and what his website is. Is that correct? While on the other hand, it is not OK to mention BullRangifer's or ScienceApologist's real names, even though they have in the past been open about this. In fact, the ANI discussion that led to Levine's past block (as well as things I vaguely remember around ScienceApologist) suggests that it is also not OK to link to an external site or relatively obscure WP page which exposes a real name, not even when this is done for only tangentially related reasons such as exposing a COI. Is this correct?

The obvious context of this thread is the complementary/alternative medicine (what BullRangifer likes to call "SCAM") wars. Occasionally this war gets quite dirty, with parties on either side trying to score points on technicalities. Some people on one side of this war regularly assume that in spite of their sometimes extreme positions on relatively established practices such as acupuncture or chiropractic, which they can only back by referencing zealots such as Barrett, they represent the "mainstream" and therefore enjoy special protection against incivility, outing, or just being bothered by continued disagreement, while their opponents' interests deserve less protection than those of an average editor. In this context it seems important to make it clear that there is no such double standard, and that there is in fact a qualitative difference between what Levine did and what BullRangifer did, which explains the different outcomes. Hans Adler 08:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

swastika barnstars?
Greetings all,

Im an admin on the Persian wikipedia. I need your input on this matter, if you would. Ive found no guidance on Meta on this particular matter:

There's a user awarding Swastika Barnstars to other users. I cant judge his intention for doing this. But he claims it is in good faith. (He does however, in my judgement, have a record of siding with antisemitic arguments on various articles.)

I'm inclined to ask him to withdraw or change the image, which can easily be offending to many other of our users. I have already received complaints. But he refuses to remove it, and claims that "the swastika was a symbol of Iranian (Aryan) heritage in Asian cultures long before Nazis came along".

How do I (would you) deal with this user(s)? Am I correct to enforce a ban on his usage of swastika barnstars? Am I correct to force him to change/withdraw the barnstar? If so, on what grounds?

He also claims that the fact that Swastika barnstars are not allowed on other wikis has no bearing or jurisdiction on Persian wikipedia. Is that a legit response?

Other admins have so far failed to respond one way or the other. (they are all busy elsewhere. There's only 7 of us for +100k users).

btw, this has happened before by other users. But each time the excuses keep getting more sophisticated.

I will read your responses. Thanks.--Zereshk (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * hmm interesting question. Its true that the swastika does have pre-nazi religous usage. What kind of context are the barnstars being given in, and to whom? However regardless of its history its obviously now associated with something much worse, which he clearly knows. If he has been told to stop though, especially if other people have found it insulting and complained i'd be inclined to block--<font color="Blue">Jac <font color="Green">16888 Talk 20:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Further to Jac16888, I would suggest that this is something you need to discuss with other Persian admins and editors. Find a consensus, and act according to it. As regards the pre Nazi history of the swastika, it should be noted that is was usually configured differently (the "feet" pointed in the other direction). You may wish to discover whether the one used in the barnstar is the classical or nazi related version. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If it helps, we (the English Wikipedia) do have a barnstar that displays a swastika (Template:Jainism Award). You'll notice, however, that it's rotated 45 degrees from the Nazi version so all lines are vertical or horizontal. Whenever I've seen a religious (non-Nazi) swastika, it's always been in that position. Do note that I'm far from an expert on the subject, though, and you should talk with others on your project regardless. :-) <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 20:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The context seems to be of good intention. However my feeling is that the dual usage of the symbol is being exploited here. IOW, IMO, he could have picked another "Aryan" symbol. Furthermore, he does have a record of saying things (e.g. once on some talk page he mentioned "if Jews are hated so much nowadays, it's obviously because of their own doing".) I dont know how to respond to such veiled statements. Polite and friendly and well intentioned on the outside, malicious and deliberate on the inside.--Zereshk (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * LessHeard, So if antisemitism statements are deemed OK by admin consensus, then it is allowed? I thought some rules (like NPOV) have jurisdiction on all wiki projects.--Zereshk (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, no. The point I thought was being made was that an editor who created the barnstar said it was an Aryan symbol and not to do with the Nazi's; therefore there might be a discussion on whether it is accepted as an Aryan symbol (being of Aryan heritage does not mean one is antisemitic) or whether it is too closely associated with Nazism and more recent fascist/antisemitic connotations and should therefore be disallowed. I suppose that if there was a consensus that it was understood to be a Nazi symbol, yet should remain then there might be a problem - like being permitted to remain hosted on Wikia servers (Bless the US of A, they still don't like the Nazi's). That was not the issue being presented here, as I saw it, however. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Google came up with something like "Pas effort to introduce you to the Aryan culture and civilization is Svastyka offer. - sicaspi 21 July 2009, time 08:43 (" and the swastika is rotated 45 degrees. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 20:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict 2x) Yes. Manji is the Japanese symbol for Buddhism, which coincidentally is in the shape of a swastika. This was even used as the design for the 3rd dungeon in the NES game The Legend of Zelda (see ); the developers named the level "Manji". MuZemike 20:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding using it as a barnstar, I think it would be in particular bad taste to do so and might foster a hostile environment for others; see the swastika painted in front of Rep. David Scott's (D-GA) office yesterday (who also happens to be black - a black Democratic Nazi?) MuZemike 20:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Check out the ignoring of the guidelines on the use of "terrorist" on the 9/11 article on En:Wiki. If the majority  of Persian editors agreed that Hitler was a good guy, and most Persian language MSM supports that it becomes contra - WP:NPOV to say otherwise. Sarah777 (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * At one time, no doubt Hitler was a well regarded family name. However, it's come to have a very dark meaning and it isn't that anymore (I think I read that a very few of his relatives kept the name).  Same goes for swastika.  Whatever meaning it may have had once is not terribly relevant.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wehwalt, I'm trying to point out the only modern "meaning" of relevance to Persian Wiki is whatever the consensus on Persian Wiki and Persian language MSM references say. What we think in America/The West is irrelevant. Sarah777 (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think that his applies globally, then you obviously haven't watched many Bollywood movies. AFAIK it's still a standard religious symbol in Hinduism and Buddhism representing luck, in both orientations. Hans Adler 20:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The swastika in the barnstar points the opposite way to the Nazi one, and has much thinner 'arms'. Interestingly, swastika has a nice picture of a Persian necklace from around 1,000 years ago that looks very like the barnstar, and the article seems to indicate that the stigma/offence caused by the symbol is very much a Western thing. Finally, I cannot imagine an Iranian using a European political party's symbol as a means of causing offence - it's just not their style (which is also probably why you never see a swastika or similar at any Mid-East street demonstration). Little grape (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you considered it's because they read right-to-left? Have you looked at the (poor, but telling) Google translation I posted above? –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 20:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah - good point - if there's linkage between the word 'Aryan' and the use of a swastika then I'd be inclined to stop assuming any good faith! Little grape (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) Well in Europe swastikas are still used in Latvia and have been part of Latvian culture for centuries. Tourists are often fazed by the fact that one popular club, Kabata, uses one which is very close to the Nazi one see here But regardless of the local usage, it's generally thought to be best not to use them outside the country due to the negative connotations. Persian wiki should follow the same principles. Valenciano (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree with a few of the above: the symbol itself was highjacked by die Fuhrer. By itself, it has a positive meaning.  When mixed with Nazi phrases, it's offensive, IMHO.  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 21:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-history note: In 2007 there was an extended debate about various Hinduism-related templates displaying the swastika symbol, including the template Hinduism wikiproject used to welcome new contributors. There was no question that swastika was and is a sacred symbol in Hinduism (as also in Jainism), and that it was used in good faith, but several Jewish (and other) editors objected that its use was insensitive considering the twentienth century association with Nazis. You can read all sides the debate in the archives (>500KB of discussion: 1, 2 and 3) including the rotated-vs-non-rotated, clockwise-vs-counterclockwise, historical-vs-modern-use etc. IIRC the conclusion of the debate was that it is legitimate to use the symbol in article-space (such as in ) where the intended symbolism is clear from context, but to avoid it in user-space where the context is (or can be) unclear. I think that may be an appropriate compromise for Farsi wikipedia too. The revision history of circa January 2007 shows several other attempts to reach a solution, including adding explanatory notes. Abecedare (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems like an excellent idea, in mainspace its usage can be explained whereas in userspace it can be easily misconstrued. Zereshk, what do you think to this?--<font color="Blue">Jac <font color="Green">16888 Talk 21:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the example discussed above has nothing to do with Hinduism, Jainism etc. It advertises the swastika as an "Aryan" symbol. The only such associations I know of are Nazism and crypto-Nazism, and the "explanation" for using it, if it was rendered correctly, smacks of crypto-Nazism. This is highly problematic to say the least. Dahn (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Swastika is a Aryan symbol; both concepts were adopted by the Nazis in the 1930s and hence their use without appropriate context is troublesome since then. The use in Indian religions (Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism) do have the same Indo-Iranian origins. Abecedare (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The swastika was a symbol spread throughout the world, and I don't see how it could be argued that it had special significance to Indo-Europeans or even Indo-Iranians. It does have special significance to the Indian religions, but that does not fall within the scope of what we're discussing here. In this case, the swastika was directly justified as an "Aryan" symbol - linking the problematic word "Aryan" to that notion is especially contrived, and sounds to me like a poor attempt to make something look innocent when it is not. The only matter of some empirical substance here is that it is a religious symbol for some creeds in Southern Asia, but I cannot for the love of me comprehend how that would become an identification mark for good-faith non-Hindu/Jain users. One can safely say that, nowadays, the only secular symbolism the swastika has is racist. Dahn (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On Persian Wiki they can say Hitler was a saint if that is the majority pov. As for the Latvians, they may well regard him as such given their dislike of Russia. Sarah777 (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how either the Persian or Latvian wikipedias can operate outside of WP:NOT (and WP:FRINGE etc., etc.). In fact, I once participated in such debates on Romanian wikipedia, which was a prime target for far right groups to spread propaganda (and still has such problems to this day). Dahn (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The point I'm trying to make (without being branded a Nazi apologist) is that if the majority view on Persian (I haven't a clue what it is) is that Hitler is a saint then the view that he is a bad guy is WP:NOT, WP:FRINGE and so forth. Sarah777 (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. The rules don't refer to what a majority of users think, they refer to proper sourcing and the opinion as transparent from qualified sources (and good luck finding qualified sources on Hitler's holiness). Not abiding by that principle is a matter of serious concern, and hijacks this entire project. Dahn (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In Persian Wiki the qualified sources must be (as on En:Wiki) the MSM in that language. If the Iranian media decided Hitler was a saint - he becomes one. And on Persian Wiki to suggest otherwise would be counter to WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * a. I'm not sure that's what's happening in Iran (on anywhere else, for that matter). b. "Persian wiki" does not mean "a wiki reduced to Persian sources". c. the entire point you're making is hypothetical and not really related to the issue at hand. d. there comes a time when relativism becomes scary. Dahn (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reality is relative. If it scares you that, really, is your problem. Western "reality" is pretty scary in some parts of the Middle East. Absolutism is totally incompatible with WP:NPOV. There isn't one "correct" pov. Unless you are a religious fundamentalist. The issue at hand is the point. Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Trying not to read into your message the insult that it probably is (i. e., that I don't have a grip on reality), I'll rephrase my post, to which you were replying: it is not the possibility of contrasting realities in the world that scares me, it is relativism from the part of people who equivocate. It is not the world being relative, it is people who use the world being relative as an excuse to claim that anything goes. And, again, this is not about moral philosophy, PC ethics or the predominance of some POV among users - you may still be positing inrelation to that, but you're missing the point. The point it is about the core principles of wikipedia, about following scholarly opinion, and about producing quality content. Theoretical debates I'm not interested in, and sorry if I gave you the impression that I was. You people can carry on with pretending that there is a "legitimate" use for the swastika as an "Aryan" symbol, and even that there are several scientific truths on who is a "saint" and who isn't. I've had my say, I'll leave you to your speculations. Dahn (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "You people"! Who people? People who are rational? Sarah777 (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reality is relative Actually, that's your opinion. Cultural context is relative, but morality itself is much less relative than many assume. I disagree with you and agree with Confucius (from yesterday's newspaper "Cryptoquote" puzzle): Wisdom, compassion and courage are the three universally recognized moral qualities of men. And then there's the almost-universal Golden Rule, in various versions. But we're digressing. -- Noroton (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Self evidently incorrect. Wisdom manifestly varies between individuals in terms of political POV never mind between cultures. This is demonstrable, not my opinion. Just 'cos the chap who said it is dead a long time doesn't mean it makes any sense. Take Hitler for example! Sarah777 (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sarah, I simply won't respond to personal attacks. You want to misconstrue what I write? Go head, there's really nothing I can do about that. I will not demean myself by continuing a conversation with someone who allows herself to mudsling on this level. I trust people with more responsibility and maturity have understood what I had to say on this subject, and your opinion really doesn't interest me that much. Best, Dahn (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * FFS. What personal attacks? Sarah777 (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (On a side issue issue, WP:NOT is so riddled with contradictions that a six-year-old would be reprimanded for producing such intellectual garbage). Sarah777 (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As challenging as that train of thought seems, let's not get sidetracked. Dahn (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) Dear Sarah777, Latvians despised both Stalin and Hitler. The swastika (ugunskrusts) is perhaps the oldest and most ornately embellished of symbols particularly in Latvian weaving. Your uninformed speculations about Latvians, Hitler, and Russia are, well,... let's just leave it as uninformed. <span style="color:#a12830; font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  23:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I admit my ignorance of matters Latvian is willful. Sarah777 (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)




 * Yes, but that is also: a) clearly associated with Jainism; b) not referencing "the Aryans" (the very word is, outside a Vedic context, almost always a racist shibboleth. Dahn (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)




 * Lol! But it looks like a tasteless Christmas decoration! Sarah777 (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, that was my exact thought on seeing it. I might make a "Jainist decoration" this Christmas and protest innocence... ~ mazca  talk 21:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarah, I'm sure you are aware of the old Swastika Laundry in Dublin? Famous in it's day.  --HighKing (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, they had the black on white Nazi version painted on the chimney in Ballsbridge and had red vans going around with the symbol - and nobody even commented 'cos it pre-dated the Nazis. Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Minor factual correction Sarah. I have a receipt from that company dating from the mid fifties. The company had been operating for many years before and after the war. People in Dublin were used to it and apparently didn't seem to think the Nazis should be considered as having a monopoly on its use. I've often wondered to what extent wartime censorship influenced that disconnect. Certainly I never heard of any controversy that its use by the company implied some covert support for authoritarianism or mass murder. (In case its crossed anyone's mind, I don't have a collection of memorabilia with that particular symbol). RashersTierney (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't know enough to know what swastikas mean in Iranian culture. Persian wiki admins are best able to figure that out. According to Meta, even civility is a policy that's up to individual projects (emphasis added): there are three core principles that are almost universally applied I sure hope admins on that wiki have a civility policy, judge whether this violates it, and act accordingly, as only they can, and that's as it should be. I think the best thing we can say here is that the swastika makes us feel uncomfortable and, if it turns out that it is a Nazi reference, it wouldn't do the Persian wikipedia's reputation any good if it remains. Beyond that, it's not our call. Best wishes to them. -- Noroton (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If a fella wants to hand out 'Swazika barnstars'? so be it. The problem would be 'if' the receiver rejects (and deletes) the barnstar & the presenter 'adds' (re-presents) it back. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a whole different tin of peas. I know where I'd stick a Nazi barnstar.... Sarah777 (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On a Nazi barn? --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  22:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, all facts about this symbol's history aside, when people see it they think only one thing. This is unfortunate but regardless the symbol is divisive. <font color='#F02D19'>Chillum 23:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you know what Iranians think when they see the symbol (which is connected to their history)? What do Hindu and Bhuddist Indians think? Should they be telling us what to think about various cultural symbols? -- Noroton (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe a clue or two about "what Iranians think when they see the symbol" should come from these facts: a. most Iranians are neither Hindu nor Jain nor Buddhist; b. the justification for using the swastika was neither religious nor spiritual, it was racial, and apparently used a racial term; c. the racial interpretation of the swastika is one and only; and, finally and most importantly, d. this here thread was started by an admin on Persian wikipedia. Now, if you ladies and gentlemen are done discussing how you feel about swastikas being used "in other cultures", "in 1910", "on some other planet", may we start talking to the point? Dahn (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe a clue about "what Iranians think when they see the symbol" would come from the Swastika article, origins section: The symbol has an ancient history, appearing on artifacts from Indo-European cultures such as the Indo-Aryans, Persians, Hittites, Slavs, Celts and Greeks, among others. Just what the symbol would mean in modern-day Iran, given that it's been associated both with ancient Persian culture and with the idea of Aryan people since the 19th century, is not for me to say or you to say because we're both ignorant about that, only I admit my ignorance. We do know that it's possible that a cultural connection may exist completely independent of the Nazis. Although it's also possible that it means just about the same thing to Iranians that it does to us. I brought up Jainism, Hinduism and Bhuddism, as well as pre-Nazi Western use because the symbol is also used by people with those cultural connections, totally independently of Nazism. Ya know, there's a place for appeals to universal moral principles and a place to pull down phony multicultural bullshit, and I'm all for that at the appropriate time. But this ain't it. You don't condemn when you don't know what you're talking about, and we don't. -- Noroton (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely none of En:Wiki's business. We are culturally incapable of making judgments on the issue. It is also totally against the tenants of WP:NPOV Sarah777 (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Article space an userspace are two different things. NPOV is about article space. When deciding if something is disruptive or not we certainly can use our own opinions. <font color='#F92919'>Chillum 23:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like anyone to note that, per the above and previous replies, Sarah777 is making the point that, even if it is used as a Nazi symbol there and just that, it's none of wikipedia's business. Furthermore, she tells us that the contrary would be a violation of NPOV (which part of NPOV, I would be very interested to know). She also claims that "We are culturally incapable of making judgments on [the] issue" - which would imply not only that views of Nazism differ according to culture (which is just plain ridiculous), but also that en:wiki wpuld be incapable of ever hosting an article on Iran (because only Iranians "understand" their culture) and vice versa. It also ignores the simple fact that this thread was started by an Iranian, who has told us that it is a problem in "that culture" as well.
 * While Sarah's post at least carries the benefit of moving this discussion beyond faulty comparisons, it obviously does not stand to logical scrutiny. Now, I could agree that, in general and for administrative reasons, goings-on on the Iranian wiki or other wikis can't be regulated from over here (even though there are precedents for that too). But to abandon all integrity and structure by stating that another wikipedia should be a different reality, one which does away with core policies (reliable sources, NPOV, etc. - all of which are not relative) is, admittedly, an extremist and untenable position. In other words: it's perhaps acceptable that something wrong (wrong per the policies, not per morals) still happens even though it shouldn't; it's unacceptable and highly detrimental to imply that another wikipedia abides by a different code, in which black is white. Dahn (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that a barnstar of the sort shown would not be long tolerated on this project, and any editor intent on pushing it would be blocked. That said, English Wikipedia practice varies greatly from that of other projects; some are far more tolerant, some far less. The opinions of editors on the English Wikipedia have no direct consequences for folks editing any other Wikimedia project, including the Persian Wikipedia. It's for the Persian Wikipedia to decide what such a barnstar means in context, and whether that meaning is acceptable for community interaction on the Persian Wikipedia. Core and Wikimedia-wide policies like NPOV apply to content, not talkpages and barnstars, and folks with no presence at or understanding of the Persian project simply can't be competent to make decisions governing community interaction there. An exception would be if there were no active local administrators, in which case a steward could be contacted in extreme circumstances. There is a steward from Iran, Mardetanha. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 01:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Inasmuch as a barnstar is a gift: one does not give a gift because one likes it, but because the recipient likes it. Anarchangel (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Right to vanish of User:Tennis expert
User:Tennis expert is clearly lurking and has not "vanished", therefore, I would ask that all his deleted talk pages per the WP:RTV request be restored. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You have already brought this up. I ask that you cease forumshopping. Inferno,   Lord of   Penguins  07:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The talk pages were already restored, per the thread you initiated. You can find the pages here.  Tennis expert (talk) 07:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:68.189.253.206
User continuing to make unsourced content changes event after final warning.

IP editor is mainly reordering MMA bouts so that they appear out of chronological order. Repeated warnings with the editor offering no reply for actions.

Warnings here:

Edits after final warning here:

--Drr-darkomen (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: Edited to make proper diffs --Drr-darkomen (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Another edit post final warning:    --Drr-darkomen (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My first thought was WP:ANI, however, the recent edits seem to be more a content dispute rather than vandalism. I've protected the page for a period of 3 days, and left a note on the talk page.  Please note: editors violating WP:3RR are subject to being blocked, I'd rather not have to take that step.  Please use the discussion page to resolve this matter.  Also note, that where sources are available, that material is preferable to un-sourced claims. — Ched : <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ?  08:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My edits/reverts were in line with the source here: and the IP editor in question has yet to respond to me on the issue.  I have added input at the talk page as well.  Thank you.  --Drr-darkomen (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Spammer?
Special:Contributions/G4050. All contributions seem to be adding links to the same site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.82.42 (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I rolled back some edits and left a message on his page. Maybe they will stop with no bad blood.  If they don't, post here again and someone will indef the account and add the website to our blacklist. Protonk (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Tracking information:



MER-C 09:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Irrito


Hi. The above user (also working through IPs) has been edit warring on the Steorn article, refusing to enter into sensible discussions, hassling other editors and making bad faith accusations of CoI. I am requesting a permanent block of the account and a temporary one of the IPs.

Potted history:
 * First of several edits suggesting that "Ian MacDonald", one of a jury of scientists chosen by Steorn, was a family doctor. Quickly reverted by User:McGeddon as OR and reverted again by User:Ianmacm as personal commentary.
 * posted on McGeddon's talk page saying that "their research" had revealed important facts. McGeddon gave a clear reply and had what I think is a patient discussion.
 * Starting to try to get Ian MacDonald to out himself. Reverted as vandalism by User:ZooFari — GDallimore — (continues after insertion below.)
 * I asked him if he was Ian McDonald associated with UofA an if so please provide a link to verify. He said I was mistaken as he was another Ian McDonald. How this reached vandalism is beyond me.Irrito (talk)


 * Found someone called Ian MacDonald on the Internet who was a dentist and suggested on the article that this was the same Ian MacDonald as mentioned in a news article. Reverted as OR by McGeddon and further explained on user's talk page,
 * Opened the Irrito account and first two edits were hassling Ianmacm demanding that they confirm that they are "Ian MacDonald" and insulting — GDallimore — (continues after insertion below.)
 * This is a telling edit comments by McGeddon becuase he edits something out of the article he has no information countering the fact nor does he have any fact supporting his position that McDonald is a dentist and a scientist.Irrito (talk)
 * McGeddon. Later accused McGeddon of a CoI, and of being mad and illogical when McGeddon was continuing his attempts to explain.


 * Irrito then made a series of unconstructive edits which I reverted, and was re-reverted with the accusation that I was attempting to mislead and had an interest in Steorn. — GDallimore — (continues after insertion below.)
 * This claims lacks any specific allegations: McGeddon is attempting to play fast and loose with his charges.Irrito (talk)

Thanks for listening. GDallimore (Talk) 10:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point, I posted a strongly worded warning to Irrito (perhaps too strong) along with a full explanation of my reverts. Irrito has not responded but has continued edit warring and hassling.
 * Latest reversion at 10.27 this morning led me to come here with a block request.
 * Just dropped by and saw this, I've protected the article for a week, maybe someone else can look at the editor, I don't think I have time right now. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please could you undo that as it's not at all the result that I think will help. This is not a content dispute. At least four editors other than me have been reverting this one disruptive editor and protecting it to prevent anyone from improving the article is just further disruption. My call for him to be blocked is not for the edit-warring but for the personal attacks, insults and hassling that have gone with it when people have tried to explain why his edits are not appropriate. GDallimore (Talk) 14:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One final thing I've just noticed: User:Irrito broke 3RR, although one of the edits was by IP.   and  between 15.47 on the 10th and 10.27 on the 11th. A block should be enforced just for that, irrespective of the rest of this user's behaviour. GDallimore (Talk) 16:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocking is preventative, not punitive. As the article is protected at the moment, there's nothing to protect (unless he goes elsewhere) and no reason to block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But that's wrong. The protection of the article prevents legit editors from contributing to the article, while the person who's disrupting goes blithely on his way.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The editprotected template is a wonderful thing. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Give me a break. The only editor edit-warring is Irrito, with multiple people reverting him and one editor going so far as to call his contributions a "junk edit". Protection of the article is the least constructive resolution. Blocking one user would remove the only disruptive element, preventing all disruption. GDallimore (Talk) 08:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * exactly. Unprotect and block the single disruptive editor.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear to me how much editing you need to do this article. What is that you need to edit in this article that is so important.Irrito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC).


 * ←Just a note to say the editor in question has sought input from other people. He chose the wrong venue (DRV, of all places), but the thought patterns there seem absolutely correct to me.—<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">S Marshall  <font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Talk /<font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Cont  23:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He sought input ONLY after being warned that this discussion was taking place here, and his way of seeking input was to accuse McGeddon of sockpuppeting, with me as the sockpuppet, an accusation repeated below. I am not after a punitive block. This is an SPA who has been warned multiple times not to make personal attacks and to assume good faith yet demonstrably refuses to do so. Block this guy to prevent this further unacceptable behaviour and let constructive editors get on with editing. GDallimore (Talk) 08:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In the past three weeks I've advised Irrito four separate times to discuss his concerns with other editors at Talk:Steorn. A talk page section was created about the edits in question on the 27th, and Irrito was told about it and invited to contribute, but he has apparently chosen to ignore it in favour of making repeated reverts and increasingly incoherent personal attacks. --McGeddon (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * here is what is interesting about your advice to talk:Steron you continue to dominate the Stoern page while all criticism about you goes on the back pages, which most visitors never see.Irrito (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC).
 * The fact that I did seek help after the complaint was made on this page does not dimishish S Marshall's analysis. The fact that you attack me as oppose to my claim demonstrate part of the reason I have a problem with your and your friends upkeep of the Stoern page.Irrito (talk)

Counter claim
It appears from the comments made about me, Mr. McGeddon failed to mention that he has done his utmost to down play the pit falls of Stoern. He does this by playing up Stoern claims, without criticism in the first party of the article. In doing so, he placed subject matter in places it does not belong--such as the jury of scientists Stoern hired in the first and third section, but does not mention, until the Jury section, that in fact Stoern's claims of scientific legitimacy was not supported by the Jury. Moreover, the McGeddon appears to be very selective in his editing, e.g., he will allow Stoern's unsupported claim (Steorn disputed the jury's findings[6] and said that, due to difficulties in implementing the technology, the jury had only been provided with test data on magnetic effects for study.) to exist while claiming that a search on the University of Alberta's (U of A)website that returns no results as to Mr. McDonald's association is not supported by a 3rd source. I accept McGeddon's edits if it is applied equally to all contributors.

Furthermore, I doubt the legitimacy of McGeddon as a person without an interest in Stoern. Reviewing his editing over the YEARS of Stoern, he has made changes at all times, shortly after others have made editing changes. This appears to be a company hire to protect the editing of the Stoern Wikipedia page or Stoern itself then an altruistic in Wikipedia.

(p)Evidence of Year of Editing and editing within shortly after other's editing

(cur) (prev) 11:15, 6 July 2007 GDallimore (talk | contribs) (33,405 bytes) (not in source.) (cur) (prev) 11:11, 6 July 2007 Boldra (talk | contribs) (33,418 bytes) (→Demonstration (July 2007)) (cur) (prev) 10:07, 6 July 2007 GDallimore (talk | contribs) (33,405 bytes) (→Arguments against: use better source)

Moreover, I had a secondary source which I cited that Ivan McDonald is a family doctor associated with U of A, which MCGeddon and his sockpuppet quickly edited out--even though it met the requirement of a secondary source AND McGeddon had no source to dispute this fact. Irrito (talk)


 * You seem to be mixing up a number of different people


 * Ivan McDonald is a family doctor associated with U of A - maybe but who cares and what's it to do with the article?
 * Dr. Ian McDonald is the Chair, Department of Ophthalmology at the UA
 * Prof. R Ian MacDonald who is involved in the Steorn stuff can be found here and his profile fits what Steorn claims - if needed, I'm sure I could dig up some papers that provide conclusive proof of the university affliction. — Cameron Scott — (continues after insertion below.)


 * See, you fall into the trap. You could but you did not.  Moreover, we are not discussing whether you could or you could not.  The issue is whether my posting with a independent secondary source should have been deleted.  If so, then, using the same rule, shouldn't Stoern's claim that the jury did not have the right data,which is not supported by any proof, be allowed to stay in the article.  I guess this boils down to is this a fact article or a new arcticle.Irrito (talk)


 * Lets be clear about what the problem actually is - you are making very serious charges of misrepresentation against BLPs figures on what appears to be your misunderstanding of sources and your mixing up of two different people. You should stop unless you are provide reliable third party sources that make this link. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To be clear, you have not cleared up anything but have raised more questions. Please state each and every fact that you have to make the claims that my secondary source is not reliable as to Mr. McDonald.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irrito (talk • contribs) 14:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Moreover, why do you address only one of my edits disputes and apply them to all. For example, my point was that he does his best to hide the bad information at the bottom of the article, you made no remark. My point is that he has protected the page at all times of the day, you made no remark.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irrito (talk • contribs) 14:39, 12 August 2009


 * I've only addressed the only point because I don't care about your other issues, only that your claims that an living figure has misrepresented his expertise is a violation of our BLP policies. I don't plan to get in a long debate with you as it's clearly you are already wasting enough people's time. This is how this works - if you can find a reliable third party source that says that Prof. McDonald has misrepresented his expertise, you need to present it. If you cannot present it, you need to stop making the claim or you should be blocked immediately as a clear and present danger to our policies at WP:BLP. That's the start and end of my discussion with you. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Cameron, are you representing that you are a member of Wikipedia: "OUR BLP policy"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irrito (talk • contribs) 15:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All good faith editors can consider themselves members of the project. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it that you came to the understanding that Cameron is a good faith editor. Was it his statement: I don't care ... You are wasting people's time. Irrito (talk)

Cameron, is your contention that if I demonstrate with verifiable 3rd party evidence a fact concerning Stoern's jury that it cannot not go into the article. However, the fact that you are claiming is on a site that appears to have less credibility that U of A's website.

Is it also your contention that a valid argument that I have isn't worth your time?

Why do you what to narrow my concerns down to one issue and claim you don't have the time for others?

If you are going to get into an argument you should consider the amount of time it will take. I have spent more time doing this, but I am willing to consider other's arguments.Irrito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC).

Lastly, Cameron, you miss the point. The point is there are no facts about the jury with the exception of Ian McDonald. I searched, as you did, facts concerning this expert at U of A. You seem to make a claim that we know his expertise, but Stoern has not provided any information that I am aware of any other juror other than the name and position of Ian McDonald.Irrito (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC).

Random break
Promised myself I'd step back from this, but it's becoming too much of a mess. Apologies that this page has become a venue for arguments about Irrito's dispute over the content of the article, which was never my intention. That part of the dispute had nothing to do with my original complaint here which is rather a request for a block due to Irrito's behaviour in calling McGeddon "mad", hassling Ianmacm on his talk page and accusing people of having conflicts of interest without cause or reason. Despite multiple warnings to assume good faith and to avoid personal attacks, he shows no remorse for his actions and he in fact escalated them here into accusations of sock-puppeting. I think Irrito's contributions above should be enough to hang him even if the insults and attacks previously were not. Can a passing admin please bring this to a close. If nobody is going to effect a block, please just say so and close this discussion before it gets any more messy. Everyone can then wait out the week that Steorn is protected and put this in the past. Thank you. GDallimore (Talk) 21:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the Ianmacm confusion was an innocent enough mistake, and it doesn't seem that hassling. Irrito just seems to be having trouble understanding basic Wikipedia policy in terms of why we can't say "this doctor with the same name and university is definitely the same guy", and why we can say "Steorn disputed the jury's findings" (both of which I've tried to explain on his talk pages). Rather than talk this through as suggested, he's turning to revert wars and dismissing other editors as Steorn employees and, now, sockpuppets of each other. A short block seems more appropriate than fully protecting the article. --McGeddon (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

Both Mcgeddon and GDallimore fail to address the essence of their editing mistakes. They cannot over come the fact that I provided a creditable unrelated reliable source. I can say this several times but it doesn't make it any more true.

However, this is one of several issues I have with them/it (assuming they are Stoern a company Stoern hired)--do they/it concede that their/its editing provided unjustied creditibility to Stoern by stating supporting facts in sections that are clearly belong in other section and not stating damaging facts to balance their supporting. Are they also admitting that they placed close attention to the Stoern article making and changes to content they don't like with a short time--sometime within minutes. (This is the most telling fact: why would a non-interest third party/ies pay so much attention to a small company in Ireland wikipedia's page.) My interest are to have a balance view which means from the start to the bottom of the article.Irrito (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
 * What "credible unrelated reliable source" - all you have produced appears to be the product of your own obsession with Stoern. Look at the full editing history of all the editors you are abusing.  Is it really remotely likely that they are all associated with Stoern.  Are you now going to say that myself and Cameron Scott are? Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Elen of the Road you don't think University of Alberta website is crediable, because I cited the site and it was deleted by the people you call good faith editors.Irrito (talk)

(assuming they are Stoern a company Stoern hired)- How long is this guy going to be allowed to attack good faith long-term editors in this way? --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Cameron, I ask you nicely to go away as you will only consider your argument and lack objectivity.please see your above statement and your lack of responses to questions concerning your statements.Irrito (talk)


 * Probably as long as it takes someone to work up the courage to sift through the...'interesting'...exchanges and links above. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)